D&D is a cooperative RPG

[icyshadowlord]

Okay, and here I am feeling like I should remove Shad from my ignore list and put Plebi there instead. I mean, come on, you're still around here flailing about how GODLY AWESOME 4th edition is or something? Because now you're not just heading off-topic, but you're being a moron...again.

With that said, I'm not sure where this discussion is going to go from here. And I also want to say that I think I will only hang around lurking in ENworld to see if I can stealth-troll Pathfinder players and try to have reasonable conversations with those who still play (or try to play) 3.x games of any sort.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Okay, and here I am feeling like I should remove Shad from my ignore list and put Plebi there instead.

Why not both?

[icyshadowlord]

Okay, and here I am feeling like I should remove Shad from my ignore list and put Plebi there instead.

Why not both?

...good question. *Runs off*

[Plebian]

it is pretty amusing how any sort of positive spin on 4e automatically gets a few idiots going about how you're saying 4e is the best game ever

protip: it's not, it just happens to be better than previous editions

edit: even more amusingly I didn't even mention 4e but you automatically associated balance with 4e, which is cool because it is the first edition to attempt balance so things can only improve further.

it's okay you don't have to feel threatened, no one will mock you for liking 3e because it's a personal choice. of course feel free to attack me for daring to like 4e because it's so objectively inferior and how could I not see how bad it is in ways that are totally different than previous editions because

[icyshadowlord]

I wonder why I bothered viewing your post, Plebian. It still makes no sense. "It's better than previous editions" is merely a statement presenting a subjective view. It's a matter of taste you are trying to shove down people's throats like it was a fact, even when people are more than willing to prove you wrong. With that said, I wonder what kind of mental illness you suffer from since you don't know when to quit, and you still haven't realized how retarded you sound.

God, not having English as a native language sucks. I keep needing to edit these. Being Finnish kinda sucks now, too.

[Plebian]

oh, no, people here spent a fair amount of time denying that their statements in this forum were anything but subjective viewpoints even when they were phrased as objective statements.

so I get to be measured by the same yardstick.

[Archmage]

shadzar is the most awesome poster ever. He's like Gene Ray crossed with Gary Gygax and the "crotchety" dial turned up to 11.

[Judging__Eagle]

shadzar is the fool who says "this is how things were always done, and therefore good; any change is obviously bad"

Plebian is supposedly the fool who says "this is new and therefore better."

The thing is..... caster supremacy exists in 4e just as much as it did in 1e and 2e. Cloud of Daggers is a hot-shit spell, and Wizards are still a hot shit class.

In 2e, Wizards were ridiculously powerful, and that's that. In 3e the trend remained. In 4e the trend was to nerf everything, but Wizards still squeaked by with a bunch of golden apples while everyone else starved on the fruits of "weapon damage + move back an enemy 1 square".

Personally, I like that 3e was basically the same thing that 2e was. The homebrew rules collected over the last decade, and then made into a new edition. Stuff like "full Hit Points at first level" was something learned from 2e games. Giving every creature the same types of stats as PCs was to improve transparency over 2e, while keeping everything within those monster manuals pretty much the same. Ogre Mages are still Cones of Cold on an escape switch, Gelatinous Cubes are scary looking, but chump change monsters. Rust monsters fuck everyone's day. Those things didn't change from 2e to 3e.

[Plebian]

oh, I'll never pretend that 4e is perfect but claiming that Wizards are still an example of caster supremacy is just silly. yeah, Wizard builds can be powerful.

so can Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Warlord, etc. caster supremacy isn't about casters having a powerful build; it's about smart casters being able to do anything better than anyone else. so "everyone else" starving on similar powers to Wizards is pretty much an ignorant statement. yeah, they're pretty good, but uh I guess you haven't looked at any other classes with equally good abilities. because that's the only situation I can imagine that you think Wizards are the only ones with fun toys.


edit: oh and it's not better because it's new; it's better because it at least tries for balance. does it do the best job possible? nope. does it make the game (gun instead of game that's what I get for watching Castle while I post) more fun for a wider range of people? sure as hell does. and I'm not scared of WotC innovating rather than releasing a refined AD&D.

also about 99% of the arguments I see against 4e? saw them about 3e. verbatim. makes it really hard to take them seriously.

[Username17]

Being Finnish kinda sucks now, too.

That's not fair. You have black metal. And burning phone books. And sometimes you get to party with the other Scandinavians. As I understand it, the sun will rise any day now over there.

-Username17

[icyshadowlord]

Oh, Frank. You just made the mistake of mentioning Finns in the same sentence with the other Scandinavians (I am familiar with those comics, by the way). I can let you in on one thing: Finns and Swedes DO NOT GET ALONG, and even I enjoy calling Swedish people [EDITED] when they call us cavemen. (Also, Finland is technically not part of Scandinavia. It's confusing, but that's how it is)

But yes, you are right about the black metal. Too bad I haven't heard anything good in a while. Now with that out of the way, I wonder what kind of bullcrap Plebian will try to throw at us next. It's funny he's willing to dismiss even those who actually HAVE played 4e like myself. Sure, I still think 3.x games are better, but he still insists that I somehow played 4e wrong for thinking that.

Edit for forgetting to mention one thing.

[Plebian]

yeah, me saying that you liking 3e was fine because it's personal preference is totally equivalent to me saying you're having fun wrong

why do people who hate 4e have this pathological need to make shit up about people who like 4e and/or 4e itself?

[icyshadowlord]

yeah, me saying that you liking 3e was fine because it's personal preference is totally equivalent to me saying you're having fun wrong

why do people who hate 4e have this pathological need to make shit up about people who like 4e and/or 4e itself?

Do you wanna know something funny? I do not HATE 4e. I simply prefer 3.x over 4e in general, just like I prefer 3.x over Pathfinder. The funny thing is that you only seem to see people who love it, and people who hate it. Sure, we never went very far with our 4e games, but nobody wanted to quit in the middle either.

I've just had more fun playing 3.5 than 4e, and the only way you could really change how my personal experiences went is with a time machine. Even if you were SOMEHOW smart enough to even TRY something like that, you wouldn't know when and where I had the game sessions. With that said, I am still perplexed by why you bother wasting your time spouting nonsense.

[Plebian]

ohhhhh so you don't like it when I put words into your mouth about you hating 4e

huh must be kinda similar to how I feel when you put words in my mouth about how "GODLY AWESOME" 4e is

[icyshadowlord]

ohhhhh so you don't like it when I put words into your mouth about you hating 4e

huh must be kinda similar to how I feel when you put words in my mouth about how "GODLY AWESOME" 4e is

It's funny how you basically ignored my earlier post entirely and just jumped to personal issues. And actually, I didn't care at all about how you put words in my mouth. You've already made yourself look so retarded in my eyes that I'd laugh my ass off even if I met you live somewhere...even if you had the chance to kick my ass, but I doubt you're that impressive.

[Plebian]

I really don't get angry enough over people's opinions about a game where people pretend to be elves to get into a fight

[shadzar]

Anyhow, you're definitely arguing about a separate issue than I am. You're arguing about the human-factor of Cooperation while I'm going off about the impact of the game's rules on Player Cooperation.

No system can account for someone purposefully trolling his party. That shit happens and requires communication outside the scope of the game to fix. I don't care about that part because we can't mess with that.

Therein lies the problem, you CAN fix the behavior, by not playing with people who will NOT cooperate.

Once they learn their behavior is NOT acceptable, then they can come back to the game, or forever be shut out of it, unless they find others of their kind to play.

Someone going on a killing spree with a hammer doesn't mean the hammer has a problem. The person using the hammer is the problem, and likewise has to do without using hammer anymore.

Your approach is the same as WotC with trying to let everyone play in some hippy fashion, or Rodney King argument of "can't we all get along?"

No, the simple is apparently not, because some people are unwilling to get along. Dont try to blame or fix the rules because some people are assholes, just don't play with the assholes.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news for anyone, but EVERYONE doesn't need to be able to play D&D, or participate in anything. Special Olympics exist to give a sort of even playing field to disabled persons. Basketball exists because, with the exception of Bo, a basketball player would likely be killed playing football.

Different things ARE designed for different people. So the people are the problem, and you understand what I am saying, but you still want to change something else rather than fix the problem, and that dumbfounds me.

When you isolate the cause of the problem, you can more easily fix it. If your kitchen sink is leaking, you dont repair the toilet. Fix the actual problem, cause that is the ONLY way to eradicate it and remove it as a problem.

The game doesnt have a problem of having too many spells for the wizard, because new spells are published and people think they have a right to use them, hell games make new spells that only exist within that group. Part of the game is the interaction of the players outside of the game. The rules explicitly state to cooperate with the other players. The game has done all it can in every edition. Now the humans playing it must take responsibility to follow that part of the games "rules" if they want, or not. But you cant complain about a rule because you threw it out and dont use it.

How many other games do you play with people, or activities do you participate in where one person continuously sets out to ruin the fun for others? Do you keep playing or doing that activity with them? Do you stop doing the activity to find something that can include them where they wont act in that manner? Do you continue doing the activity WITHOUT them, so that the other people can enjoy it?

That is the whole point of this thread, that the people are the problem, not the game. If you don't play with the people trying to abuse the game, or abuse the other players, then you will find the game works like it should.

[shadzar]

so, punish people for doing nothing but following the rules. you must be a popular dude.

If they were following the rules, this thread and the Fighter V Wizard argument would have never occurred. The goal, the objective of the game is being overlooked.

Read the first post again, since it seems you, and many others, fail to understand D&D because you skipped the part that tells, in EVERY edition, what the game is and how it works. Instead you focus on one little part of the game and how that part works rather than looking at how the whole of the game works.

Maybe you dont understand situational/conditional choices, but if that is the case, why are you playing a game that requires you to make choices?

The condition for a character is you may create anything provided by the rules that cooperates with the other players to have a shared story.

Of course you can turn the game into PvP, and often PvP can happen and how a DM handles it is different, some let it play out and others squash PvP from the onset.

Everything in ANY edition book is rules, conditional to that overall goal of the game.

Go here and read the 2e PHB portion on goal. The goal of the game is bolded, but the rest explains, that in the course of the game there can be others goals that are part of the larger one.

Maybe it is another case of "level". So the goal of the game is for all players to work together and have fun, while the game itself has objectives for the characters to accomplish while the players work towards the goal of ALL HAVING FUN TOGETHER.

This doesn't mean that player/character conflict will always ruin the fun of the game, but it has to be fun for all to work.

Ever order pizza for a group? One person allergic to peppers, but everyone else wants peppers? Either you make that one person do without pizza, or act like picking off the peppers will somehow make the pizza saturated with them safe; or you order a pizza with and one without...or just pick something else.

You would likely order the pizza with peppers and make the allergic person do without, while at the same time making them pay for part of the pizza they cannot even eat.

[Bobikus]

When you isolate the cause of the problem, you can more easily fix it. If your kitchen sink is leaking, you dont repair the toilet.

Everyone else is trying to fix the sink, you're just telling them to run the faucet on low power.

[shadzar]

When you isolate the cause of the problem, you can more easily fix it. If your kitchen sink is leaking, you dont repair the toilet.

Everyone else is trying to fix the sink, you're just telling them to run the faucet on low power.

Good use of analogy to the "kitchen sink" game, but no.

I am telling people to fix the sink, by removing the broken gasket (self-centered attention whore player), and replace it with a functioning one (cooperative player).

Others are just suggesting replacing the sink with a whole new design, and overlooking that in doing so, they ARE replacing the gasket as they replace the entire sink. But it doesn't mean the new sink's gasket wont eventually have to be fixed too.

The problem is not the game allows, but the other players allow the incorrect play/behavior, and rather than doing something themselves are the parents screaming "what about the children", rather than raising their own damn children themselves. Always looking for someone else to do the work for you.

The game will never solve the problem of the people who want to be the attention whore. That is something the group must fix at the group level, not ask the game or its designers to do. Find a psychiatrist, counselor, or therapist if you need help making your group work because you cannot do without this one person in it, and then just wont work with the others.

There is no I, in Dungeons and Dragons.

[Wrathzog]

Lots of words...

You're seriously missing the point. There are three different people that we're talking about here: Trolls, Munchkins, and normal gamers.

The people you keep bringing up are Trolls. These are people with personality disorders and they're straight up not going to play nice with other people. These are the people that you keep talking about. Again, we don't care about them because yes, they need to be dealt with at a personal level. Groups will kick trolls out of their gaming group and that's that.

Munchkins are the people that we're worried about. These guys will play optimized characters but they're only disruptive towards cooperative play when they run around soloing encounters by themselves. In 3rd Edition, this was completely possible if they selected a Full Caster. They're not doing it purposefully, they're just playing their character to its fullest potential Under the Game Rules.
If it was up to you, you'd kick these guys out of their groups too just because they're playing the game as written. That's not cool. They are being punished due to a failing in the game's design.

Normal Gamers are people who play the game as intended. We don't care about them either because they're not a problem.

[Novembermike]

So the problem with the system is the players?

[Wrathzog]

Yes, that's what he's been saying.

[Novembermike]

That doesn't seem like a practical game philosophy. It completely ignores any issues with the game because the players and DM can meta game to remove them.

[shadzar]

If it was up to you, you'd kick these guys out of their groups too just because they're playing the game as written. That's not cool. They are being punished due to a failing in the game's design.

Lets follow your assertion, and say that normal gamers get along, and disruptive trolls are removed form the gorup.

Why then keep disruptive munchkins?

The games design, again tells you to cooperate. If you have advanced 3 levels and still pissing off other players with what you are doing, then you should be kicked out of the game. You have proven yourself to NOT want to cooperate with the others, so why should they waste time with you.

Again, the conditional is being missed by these people. The rules tell you the game is cooperative, and you blame me for wanting to kick them out until they learn to behave calling it punishing them...then you turn around and call them following the rules while blatantly ignoring them.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

IF they are following the rules, then they would not be doing the things that cause disruptions in the game. The game's design is clear. Not any sort of one-true-wayism either. But the game is there to let everyone enjoy it. If someone isnt contributing to the enjoyment of everyone, then they are disruptive.

It is high time they got the boot, rather than blaming the game.

I had a friend that is a good person, tried to play, but just couldnt get with it, because depending on the rest of the group, means he could fail. He sat in two games and watched and jsut decided that D&D is too reliant on the rest of the group as opposed to Wolfensiten where you are a team, but gooff and left alone to do things as a part of the team, not that you had to do things as a group. He gracefully bowed out rather than trying to continuously get people to play where he didnt have to rely on them. He said the game jsut wasnt for him.

Its time more do the same. If you cant figure out the basic principle of the game, then maybe it is time to find a new one, and for other people to start helping you find a way out of D&D.

@Novembermike: Yes the players misunderstanding the game, are the problem, not the game giving options for players to abuse those options.

If the people were understanding their character is a PART of the story, and a PART of the protagonist group, then they would better be able to make a character that works with the group.

It is a deficiency in the players understanding of the game and not the rules of it. This could come from other RPGs like console ones, where the player was the ONLY person playing as was a single player game and RPG translated over to mean that. Poor choice of naming the genre. It could be any number of reasons, but IF and once people learn that it is cooperative then things work a hell of a lot better. Take for example a party made of pre-gens for event like LFR, D&D gamesday encounters, etc.

All characters have to fit in two places. They must fit in the game world, and the DM can give examples of what things dont fit, as well they must fit within the PC group. (See: So you are all in a tavern...) If they don't fit both, then the character doesnt work for the current game.

Saying the wizards across the entire world for a given game of D&D have aces to the plethora of spells, doesnt in any way say that the game having them all is a problem.

Maybe it really is that many people dont understand the point of D&D still, that causes all these problems, but are trying to do something with it it was not intended to be used for. That isnt a problem with the game, but the players.

You cant really say that a cooperative game has failed something jsut because it wasnt played cooperatively. Likewise you cant say a competitive game has failed because people cooperated in it.

Beds are tested based on how they are intended to be used, not as if they were automobiles. There are no air-bags or crumple zones on beds, because they are tested based on their intended use, and certified and assure that they work for what they were meant to be used for. Doing something other than what the bed was made for is at your own risk.

Likewise not cooperating to make D&D work is at your own risk.

Initially D&D was designed to give each player a chance to tell part of a shared story, rather than play out an existing story, you could make your own through play. Game design now is more about the characters getting equal this or that, when the characters are just pawns to tell the story. Important pawns to let the player become part of the story, but pawns still. So building a character was about making something that would help the other players, not about making something that would help the characters, because the characters are really not that important if there is no one to play them. Characters stop getting played when the players stop wanting to play because of things other players do.

4th edition is an example of this. It has forgotten its purpose, and rather than try to get people back to the purpose of playing D&D, it is trying to adapt to the players it created by the hundreds of thousands. Those that see D&D as a game, and still think like all other games. The characters arent supposed to be the best in the entire world as 4th edition claims. The player characters story is the one being told because those are the characters being played by the players, and nothing more.