D&D is a cooperative RPG

Plebian · Post by **Plebian** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:56 pm

you are literally saying that it's the players faults for following the rules of the game

that is impressively stupid

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:59 pm

If the players are following the rules of the game in a non-abusive manner (abusive would be pun-pun or similar that pry the game apart at the edges) and it doesn't work that's a problem with the game.

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:15 pm

Congratulations, you have reached enlightenment.

shadzar does not (or will not) understand that "the game isn't broken, you're playing it incorrectly," is a variant of the Oberoni fallacy.

Telling players that they cannot do things explicitly allowed by the rules is CHANGING THE RULES. shadzar is arguing that if a player does something legal but the DM doesn't like it that he should CHANGE THE RULES and say it doesn't work and/or punish the "problem" player.

In short, you should FIX THE BROKEN GAME by making new rules, some of which are unspoken.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:08 pm

Novembermike wrote:If the players are following the rules of the game in a non-abusive manner (abusive would be pun-pun or similar that pry the game apart at the edges) and it doesn't work that's a problem with the game.

pun-pun isnt the only way to abuse the rules though.

that is what isnt understood. you think small abuses place the game at fault and only big abuses are player related, but a player abusing the game, is a player abusing the game, no matter what degree they are doing so.

Do you really think playtesting goes something like this...

"Hey let's see who can make the character to fuck over the other players best!"

That doesn't test the game, since the game isnt made anywhere to be competitive. You have to use the game properly while testing it to see if it breaks. Wooden handled hammers burn good for warmth from a fire, but dont blame the hammer later when you need it for something else if you burnt its handle off.

You have to do things right when testing, and play characters working WITH the other players characters. If you aren't, then you arent testing properly to be able to see where a problem in the game lies, only proving that the players have a problem understanding the function of the game.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:14 pm

Archmage wrote:Telling players that they cannot do things explicitly allowed by the rules is CHANGING THE RULES. shadzar is arguing that if a player does something legal but the DM doesn't like it that he should CHANGE THE RULES and say it doesn't work and/or punish the "problem" player.

You still aren't understanding D&D.

You still cant see the forest for the trees. You are focusing on character creation rules, rather than the purpose of the entire game, of which the character creation rules are a PART, not the whole.

Play the game, not the rules.

You are wanting to play character creation, not to play D&D.

You like many before you dont know what D&D is, and are trying to play something else, and blaming your misunderstanding of D&D for it.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:07 pm

Shadzar, I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. Let's start over. I'm going to make a statement and then follow it up with one sentence to support it.

3E D&D doesn't promote cooperative play. It doesn't promote cooperative play because cooperative play is at no point necessary for certain character classes.

Your turn.

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:16 pm

You are not seeing the forest for the trees. I am talking about taking actions allowed by the rules, like casting the spells in my hypothetical wizard's spellbook. Those spells are in my hypothetical spellbook because they are spells I picked out of the PHB like the hypothetical DM told me to do or acquired during a hypothetical adventure. I am not talking about character creation.

You, like you have demonstrated every other time you have posted in this thread, do not understand D&D. Stop blaming other people for your inability to read.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:49 pm

Wrathzog wrote:Shadzar, I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. Let's start over. I'm going to make a statement and then follow it up with one sentence to support it.

3E D&D doesn't promote cooperative play. It doesn't promote cooperative play because cooperative play is at no point necessary for certain character classes.

Your turn.

D&D promotes cooperative play. It promotes cooperative play by having players work together for the common goal, unlike competitive games where a single player tries to outdo another.

Your turn.

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:57 pm

shadzar wrote:
Novembermike wrote:If the players are following the rules of the game in a non-abusive manner (abusive would be pun-pun or similar that pry the game apart at the edges) and it doesn't work that's a problem with the game.
pun-pun isnt the only way to abuse the rules though.

Here's the thing. It isn't abusive to perform any actions or set of actions that the developers could have reasonably expected. Bull Rushing somebody over and over again isn't abusive, using diplomacy isn't abusive and casting spells isn't abusive. It's only abusive if it's done in a way that the developer could not have reasonably predicted and it isn't supported by the spirit of the rules.

All you've shown is that a non-abusive player can break the game, which is indicative of a bad system.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:12 pm

Novembermike wrote:
shadzar wrote:
Novembermike wrote:If the players are following the rules of the game in a non-abusive manner (abusive would be pun-pun or similar that pry the game apart at the edges) and it doesn't work that's a problem with the game.
pun-pun isnt the only way to abuse the rules though.
Here's the thing. It isn't abusive to perform any actions or set of actions that the developers could have reasonably expected. Bull Rushing somebody over and over again isn't abusive, using diplomacy isn't abusive and casting spells isn't abusive. It's only abusive if it's done in a way that the developer could not have reasonably predicted and it isn't supported by the spirit of the rules.

All you've shown is that a non-abusive player can break the game, which is indicative of a bad system.

I have yet to see the game is broken.

I am still asking for proof of it.

You claim it is broken, then show me or tell me about a game, wherein the players were all playing to cooperate with each other for the story, and somehow one with a legal character that is cooperating with the other PLAYERS, found something broken in the game.

And you will have to use something other than 3rd, as I don't know it, and the entire Fighter v Wizard argument predates 3rd anyway. Proving to me third sucks is meaningless as I already believe it sucks and have for over a decade. But others are welcome to continue talking about 3rd, but I cant offer much in regards to its specifics.

So prove to me the system is bad, when people are using the system correctly to begin with.

Plebian · Post by **Plebian** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:44 pm

Save or Die spells

damn man that was easy

edit: oh with Greater Malison, can't forget giving people a penalty to saves before forcing them to Save or Die

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:58 pm

Plebian wrote:Save or Die spells

This proves nothing. Only that a wizard using his methods can kill just as easily as a fighter. Actually with a wizard you have a chance to save from it, while with a fighter, that sword stroke only offers you the option of die.

The ability to end life with a single action is something all classes have.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:15 am

shadzar wrote: D&D promotes cooperative play. It promotes cooperative play by having players work together for the common goal, unlike competitive games where a single player tries to outdo another.

So, how does the system actually enforce that? You're saying that D&D is cooperative because it's not a competitive game which doesn't mean anything.
I'll let you try again, what mechanic in 3rd Edition D&D enforces cooperative play from its players?
And I'll give you a clue, I specifically ask about 3rd Edition because 4E actually does enforce cooperative play from its players based on the concept that every class is equally mediocre.
How does 3rd Edition pull it off?

This proves nothing. Only that a wizard using his methods can kill just as easily as a fighter. Actually with a wizard you have a chance to save from it, while with a fighter, that sword stroke only offers you the option of die.

"Just as Easily?" Implying that a Fighter is some sort of Engine of Destruction and Carnage. Also implying that Saving Throws are in any way different than Armor Class.
Save or Dies and a Long Sword are only comparable on the first two character levels of D&D.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:52 am

Wrathzog wrote:
shadzar wrote: D&D promotes cooperative play. It promotes cooperative play by having players work together for the common goal, unlike competitive games where a single player tries to outdo another.
So, how does the system actually enforce that?

The system enforces nothing. Everything enforced about the game is up to the players.

Novembermike · Post by **Novembermike** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:53 am

shadzar wrote:
Wrathzog wrote:Shadzar, I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. Let's start over. I'm going to make a statement and then follow it up with one sentence to support it.

3E D&D doesn't promote cooperative play. It doesn't promote cooperative play because cooperative play is at no point necessary for certain character classes.

Your turn.
D&D promotes cooperative play. It promotes cooperative play by having players work together for the common goal, unlike competitive games where a single player tries to outdo another.

Your turn.

How are they working together? They probably have a common goal, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're working together constructively. The wizard doesn't care about the fighter putting damage on creatures when his spells don't care about HP.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:00 am

shadzar wrote:The system enforces nothing. Everything enforced about the game is up to the players.

Except that it's the game system that establishes what the players are playing. If the players aren't playing by the rules, what are they actually doing?

Edit: I love how quote tags break this forum, btw.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:08 am

Wrathzog wrote:
This proves nothing. Only that a wizard using his methods can kill just as easily as a fighter. Actually with a wizard you have a chance to save from it, while with a fighter, that sword stroke only offers you the option of die.
"Just as Easily?" Implying that a Fighter is some sort of Engine of Destruction and Carnage. Also implying that Saving Throws are in any way different than Armor Class.
Save or Dies and a Long Sword are only comparable on the first two character levels of D&D.

he even got it backwards. If you attack someone with a longsword, you go "I roll to see if I hit you. Then roll to see how much damage I do."

The caster says "YOU roll dice to see if you don't get entangled/sent to sleep/mindcontrolled/sent to Hell/killed."

The fundamental difference is the burden of success is on the defender with a lot of the good spells. Whereas the fighter carries the burden of success on his back the entire time.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:25 am

Wrathzog wrote:
shadzar wrote:The system enforces nothing. Everything enforced about the game is up to the players.
Except that it's the game system that establishes what the players are playing. If the players aren't playing by the rules, what are they actually doing?

Playing wrong?

The system established the game to be cooperative. Once players go outside of that or neglect it, they have only themselves for things going wrong. The game is for mature people, not those needing a babysitter to remind them they are working as a team. When a player works outside of the team, they are no longer working with the system the game established.

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:26 am

"Save or die" isn't even the right answer. Save-or-dies aren't important. Killing people is not a special or unique power.

Charm person. Summon monster. Rope trick. Fly. Gaseous form. Shrink item. Dimension door. Minor and major creation. Solid fog. Charm monster. Geas. Hallucinatory terrain. Animate dead. Polymorph. Teleport. Wall of stone. Mirage arcana. Magic jar. Fabricate. Transmute rock to mud. Planar binding.

Am I not supposed to cast any of these spells? Why not?

LR · Post by LR » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:40 am

Wrathzog wrote:Munchkins

Don't use that word to refer to min-maxers and powergamers. Calling someone a munchkin implies a willingness to cheat, but min-maxers scrupulously adhere to the written rules.

Archmage" wrote:Am I not supposed to cast any of these spells? Why not?

It's not just spells. Medusa has a stoning gaze, which can only seriously be modeled as a save-or-die. Perseus even uses her head as a weapon after he kills her.

Save or dies are just a reality of fantasy life. Claiming that casters are at fault because they're the only PCs that get them is seriously unfair.

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:50 am

shadzar wrote:The system established the game to be cooperative.

No, the flavor text established the game to be cooperative.

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:51 am

shadzar wrote:The system established the game to be cooperative. Once players go outside of that or neglect it, they have only themselves for things going wrong. The game is for mature people, not those needing a babysitter to remind them they are working as a team. When a player works outside of the team, they are no longer working with the system the game established.

You're still mixing things up. The 3rd Edition System doesn't establish anything. The description of the game does. If the Introduction in the PHB included something to the effect of, "D&D 3.5 is the bestest most funnest game in the entire universe," does that necessarily make it so?
No, obviously not.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:13 am

Archmage wrote:
shadzar wrote:The system established the game to be cooperative.
No, the flavor text established the game to be cooperative.

Both of you, please try reading the first post of this thread again, where the relative parts telling WHAT the game of D&D is, is mentioned in part.

That includes 3.5 telling you how to play...

If "how to play" isn't a part of the rules, then nothing in the book is.

Plebian · Post by **Plebian** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:44 am

you really need to stop eating the wall candy shadzar

Archmage · Post by **Archmage** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:25 am

shadzar wrote:Both of you, please try reading the first post of this thread again, where the relative parts telling WHAT the game of D&D is, is mentioned in part.

Yes. D&D is a cooperative game. Players have a reason to work together--that's what the game is supposed to be about. As a result, they have to find reasons to be a team even if their characters wouldn't work together, or there's no game.

What you are missing is that to be "working together" everyone needs to be able to contribute equally.