Sorry, to respond to all of Dungeons&Dragons comment was tiring. I want to talk in this thread more often.
When reading Dungeons&Dragons comments, it seemed different scenario like <non-standard play> were used. However, my comments were about <standard play>. :smallredface:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Keveak
Usually, people do take the rest of the party's choices into consideration, but only thinking about one's own character doesn't necessarily mean that the party doesn't work together. In many games, the fact that the characters are individuals and are not made only to maximise the teamwork provides the basis for the role-playing.
Yes, I agree. However, my expression was opposing to Just_Ice's comment. To accuse not assertive people to be cowardly is not fair, too. Maybe I could be more assertive, it is true. However, it doesn't mean I can't play heroic character if I want. Like this, selfish people maybe can play teamwork in a party. It is difference of reality and fiction, isn't it?
Quote:
Those are the basic guidelines, but they are not required to be filled. Since the game has a DM, who controls what obstacles the party faces, a game can be made to fit the style that the players have, rather than having to fit to one particular style. If the party consist of rogues and wizards, the game may focus on intrigue and stealth, while a party with mostly fighters may focus on warfare and battle.
However, most parties still have members who can fill the roles to an extend. A rogue has the best abilities for sneaking and lock-picking, but everybody can learn those skills to a degree, for example. Considering how many games have more than four players, there will usually be someone in the team who can fill every role if they need it.
If you want to play a game that focuses on filling out the roles and balancing the team, that can certainly be done and many DMs will be happy to have such a game, however. It's just that D&D does not require anyone to stick to a predetermined model if they don't want to. :smallsmile:
Of course non-standard play is possible. However, mechanisms of Dungeons&Dragons seems to make this difficult. I am not an expert of Dungeons&Dragons, but <CR system> seems strict about how GM constructs challenge for party. Non-standard play is possible, but it is more difficult for GM, I think.
I understand of course any character can be created in such a system. Because personal data is not included, it can be envisioned easily one's own concept. It is not bad.
However, also it is not helpful, I think. Always the player characters must relate to each other. Maybe they are friends, maybe they are strangers. But there must be connection and reasons for unite as a group. If this cannot be agreed upon, team doesn't work. Game system does not help this stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prime32
That's how D&D was
supposed to work, but it doesn't really work that way. For example:
- Fighters are supposed to provide leadership, spot enemies approaching, and defend their allies from attack, but they don't actually get any abilities which let them do so. (there are other classes which do)
- Most of D&D's healing spells are ridiculously weak. In videogame RPGs combat is long, and there are spells which can restore 100% of a character's hp. In D&D combat usually lasts 3-4 turns, while enemies inflict damage twice as fast as it can be healed. The person with healing abilities would be helping more if they did other things in combat, and only healed between fights (or in emergencies). Or you could just use wands and potions for healing.
Basically, none of the classes are really necessary, just traditional. And it's possible to make almost any class fill any role, though some require more effort than others. Eg. if a spellcaster specialises in summoning, binding and barrier spells ("battlefield control"), then he'll be much better at defending his allies than a fighter. The crusader class is mostly a fighter type, but when he attacks an enemy it heals his nearby allies.
The explanation of Prime32 was [contradiction]. Somehow I think Prime32 is agreeing with what I said? Even if class is different, roles must be filled. If party of fighters, for Dungeons&Dragons it means potions or wands are necessary at sometime. This probably means [Craft] and [Use Magic Device] skills are necessary. Maybe [Disable Device] and [Knowledge:] skills are necessary too. Also such equipment should be bought. If the selfish players don't think about this, it will be trouble. Fighter who uses [Cure] wands is <Healer>, Fighter who uses greatsword is <Attacker>, Fighter with shield is <Defender>, etc.
Quote:
And as Keveak said, an unusual party composition just means you can run a game with a different focus. It's hard to run an intrigue-based game with a traditional party because fighter types often have poor stealth and social skills, so their player will be left out. Likewise you could run a game set in a wizard college, where everyone plays a spellcasting class.
This is perspective that players decide style of campaign. Of course in usual reality games, players and GM cooperate about this decision. I think that is good. Many infinities of styles can be done this way. However, most forum threads started by GMs is recruitment for game concept already created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Just_Ice
There's a difference between being selfish and being assertive. If you keep quiet every time, and you accept that it's a bit of a race for roles, it's silly to complain. You can speak up (often giving a couple options) without necessarily being selfish.
You are correct that if nothing is said a cooperation cannot happen. The example of often giving a couple of options is tried to do for such a game. However, it is rarely seen other players try this.