The Gaming Den

Cooperative: done with or working with others for a common purpose or benefit; "a cooperative effort"

Basic wrote:You, along with your friends, will create a great fantasy story,

RC wrote:The DM will present their characters with situations, and they'll decide how to react to those situations.

1st AD&D wrote:Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they are doing, i.e. they have an objective. They co-operate

2nd AD&D wrote:Remember, the point of an adventure is not to win but to have fun while working toward a common goal.

3.5 wrote:Your character is an adventurer, part of a team that regularly delves into dungeons and battles monsters.

4E wrote:You create a character, team up with other characters (your friends), explore a world, and battle monsters. and then anything can happen!

Why is it that every edition of the so-called game of D&D states that people are supposed to work together and cooperate as the adventuring party, yet there is always so much moaning and whining about balance BETWEEN THE PLAYERS?

Is it because 3.x brought most people into it? Sadly no, because people were bitching and whining about Fighter v Wizard long before the Generation Y crowd came along.

So why the hell can people not read the introductions of the books that make the game? Are people reading them and just trying to make up their own meaning and attribute it to the game? Is the game of "is says this and does that" more fun than the game of D&D to them?

HeroQuest (the original game made in 1989 not the stupid HeroWars RPG renamed) had characters similar to the Basic D&D "classes" and you didnt have the amount of competition in it that D&D does.

My stint into a few other games like Rifts and Vampire: The Masquerade, also didn't really see the competition as much and Vampire is basically a solo game where the players do things on their own and not as a group...or it was in both tabletop and LARP forms that I played.

Are other cooperative RPGs suffering form this problem of players trying to always compete rather than work together or is it endemic to D&D, and why?

EDIT: 3.5 quote (provided by erik) replacing the 3.0 quote I had so ALL editions actually state clearly that the game is a cooperative one in one way or other...so where does all the competition from the players comes from then?

*NOTE: The edition quotes are taken from the player's book from the respective editions with them, as the Rules Compendium had only one book for all to use and notbook aimed only at the players.

Shazathoth, what the hell are you talking about?

Here's some other 3e quotes from the player's handbook, not that any of these quotes means anything. Just trading in a coin that you seem to be favoring.

3.5 Player's Handbook wrote:As a player, you use this handbook to create and run a character. Your character is an adventurer, part of a team that regularly delves into dungeons and battles monsters.
...
D&D is a social experience as well as an imaginative one. Be creative, be daring and be true to your character... and most of all, have fun!

Shaz wrote: Why is it that every edition of the so-called game of D&D, except for 3.x, states that people are supposed to work together and cooperate as the adventuring party, yet there is always so much moaning and whining about balance BETWEEN THE PLAYERS?

Your assertion above is proven false, but who cares? It is the stupid intro text. There is no meaningful argument to be made from those excerpts.

Your rage against 3rd edition is entirely misplaced. Rage against the internet. It is what brought people together and brought to light everyone's house rules, everyone's discovered broken this or that, and optimized builds. If older D&D editions had the kind of exposure and collaboration then they would have received much the same treatment.

erik wrote:Here's some other 3e quotes from the player's handbook, not that any of these quotes means anything. Just trading in a coin that you seem to be favoring.

3.5 Player's Handbook wrote:As a player, you use this handbook to create and run a character. Your character is an adventurer, part of a team that regularly delves into dungeons and battles monsters.
...
D&D is a social experience as well as an imaginative one. Be creative, be daring and be true to your character... and most of all, have fun!

Actually it does, cause I have a hard time reading the mess that is 3.0, and don't have the 3.5 one available right now, so will take your word for it and replace the existing 3.x with the 3.5 you present. Thank you.

Will address the rest of your post as/if needed after editing in the 3.5 quote you thankfully have provided.

erik wrote:Rage against the internet. It is what brought people together and brought to light everyone's house rules, everyone's discovered broken this or that, and optimized builds. If older D&D editions had the kind of exposure and collaboration then they would have received much the same treatment.

I addressed that people did, long before 3.0, whine about Fighter v Wizard.

It doesn't make the game broken that a wizard is capable of things the fighter is not, it actually strengthens it as a cooperative game. A recent post about "screen time" I had to explain the same thing. It is what people are looking for and seeking form the game, that may be misplaced. The game isnt for fighting against each other, but working together, as you provided that all editions (possibly in 3.0 PHB as well, but i couldn't find it) state that you work together, but it comes down to rather than playing AND working together, people find some way to argue, because they are NOT cooperating as character nor a PLAYERS, but competing.

The problem with optimized builds is that the game wasnt made to function that way. While a screw looks very similar to a nail save for the rotational motion added to the linear motion, it doesnt mean a hammer will be best used for working with a screw in either using or removing one. The right tool for the right job. Optimizing wasnt a part of the game. That was something people turned it into. Well when using that hammer on the screw, you cant blame the hammer for you using it wrong, nor blame the screw. You are the one using the tool incorrectly. It doesnt mean a hammer needs a driver on the end so that you can use it on screws, jsut that maybe you should use the screwdriver made for the task.

D&D wasnt made to optimize ANY class, but to optimize the party, if you will. Think you can get by with the NPC healing, then dont add a cleric to the party.

Again, it is the cooperation that has been lost, and not cooperating that is causing all the problems, not that the game provides tools that are being used wrong.

Why do I feel like this whole class balance issue has been spawned from someone experiences in a party where every Wizard and Cleric (or just to make this simple, EVERY DAMN CASTER) wasted time obliterating the enemies instead of bothering to heal, buff or shield the melee classes.

If you ask me, it depends on the actual group with which you play. The guys I play with nowadays approach homebrews carefully (or just avoid them), accept house rules after proper analysis and crunch numbers rather than focus only on RP.

That is to say, teamwork (and to an extent, staying in-character RP-wise) usually works in that group. But so do some degrees of optimization and house ruling. Either way, my take on the subject is this: There are cases of co-operation, and of competition. It all depends on how people play their cards.

As shad here mentioned, there are tools for misuse in the game, but making the right choices will get good results from a co-operative perspective. Sure, some Wizards wanna go all pew-pew on the monsters, but some of them also bother thinking that they're not soloing the monster but are instead in a group, and the Fighter wants a chance to kick ass as well.

icyshadowlord wrote:Sure, some Wizards wanna go all pew-pew on the monsters, but some of them also bother thinking that they're not soloing the monster but are instead in a group, and the Fighter wants a chance to kick ass as well.

It not even just about the sharing of the spotlight really in regards to damage or kicking ass. Take a wizard with only combat spells to try to outshiine the fighter, or all spells related to thief skills to outshine the thief...what happens when that wizard is needed for something else? He has to waste spells, and take time to memorize other ones because he wasnt doing his job. As you say the healing and buffing as opposed to damage dealing.

In EQ my cleric would solo hill giant and tick off parties of paladins and druids of a higher level for kill stealing even if i camped them first.

Well the MMO has that feature that you SHOULD be able to group for things, but you MUST be able to play and enjoy yourself when unable to find a group. When my cleric was grouped, he did the task required of his FOR THE GROUP, and when alone, he solo'd his ass off. Even confused people when my cleric would help take out enemies in a group because i had excess mana for spells since i could move and med at the same time thanks to having the fastest mount in the game. That is where the competition creeped in there about the druid or ranger being the damage dealer, rather than seeing it as a group. The cleric wasnt a walking med-kit, but he should be able to provide his kind of support, which was high powered damage and healing.

Had my cleric not provided any healing, then I would have not done my job, but nobody had to make a corpse run to get their items back, and we won. Likewise the wizard in D&D isnt just a damage dealer so if only doing that has failed at his duties for the things that ONLY a wizard can do.

The wizard not providing any wizard-only accessible support, has failed to be a wizard and failed to work and cooperate with the group. Which is much worse than stealing some damage dealing form the fighter, cause prior to 4th the wizard will run out and the fighter will keep going.

Which is another very funny thing with the Fighter v Wizard or other competition, that when the wizard ran out of spells, everyone stopped adventuring to let the wizard rest. Well if you are empowering a wizard player to do those things, even just outshining the fighter, then you only have yourself to blame, not the game.

The game tells a wizard how to regain spells, it doesnt say the rest of the party has to stop just because the wizard wants to do so.

That is where the game gives the players the control to BE the group. Never does the game say you have to play with bad players.

The wizard, as you said, doesnt exist just to do mass damage, and the cleric isnt just a walking med-kit. Each character must fill a gap within the group and perform tasks that only they can to help the entire group succeed.

Rather than the 3rd edition sack of rats, earlier editions should have had fighters carry around a sack of housecats and throw then at bad wizards to fix the problem.

You are right probably, the initial thing probably came from some player with a grudge, or was born form a thought experiment, but then people didnt realize that the thought experiment lives outside of the game space. Also forgot that the way to solve a problem with a player is to fix the way that player plays, but instead prefer to blame the game for the players bad behavior.

icyshadowlord wrote:Why do I feel like this whole class balance issue has been spawned from someone experiences in a party where every Wizard and Cleric (or just to make this simple, EVERY DAMN CASTER) wasted time obliterating the enemies instead of bothering to heal, buff or shield the melee classes.

...

That is to say, teamwork (and to an extent, staying in-character RP-wise) usually works in that group. But so do some degrees of optimization and house ruling. Either way, my take on the subject is this: There are cases of co-operation, and of competition. It all depends on how people play their cards.

The balance and teamwork are really different things. It's quite possible for a wizard to drop a single crowd control spell on the monsters and just sit back and eat popcorn while the rest of the party mops up. And, this will likely be more effective than the wizard spamming Magic Missiles and Fireballs while the party fights at the same time. So, that's a good example of teamwork, but also a pretty good illustration of a lack of balance.

Basically, a party of four casters can work together and do some pretty scary stuff, but a party of four non-casters working together wouldn't accomplish nearly so much.

Teamwork can make a party balanced (sort of), but it has nothing to do with the casters low-balling to make everyone else feel better about themselves.

shadzar wrote:Why is it that every edition of the so-called game of D&D states that people are supposed to work together and cooperate as the adventuring party, yet there is always so much moaning and whining about balance BETWEEN THE PLAYERS?

Clearly D&D is co-operatve, but that also means, by definition that all players need to be able to co-operate more or less co-equally. This implies that all player's characters need to be more or less blanaced, in at least the department where they contribute to the ongoing story plot line.

I love to wax nostalgic about the old editions to this game, but them facts are stubborn things (and they kick me in the shins). From the low level spell caster who has used his daily spells and has to sit out combats because he really can't contribute until the next day, to the clerics who were just God damned healing machines and nothing else, the lack of balance can have a direct impact on the co-operative aspect of the game.

Now on to the more bizzare theory: D&D is like Barbershop and Vampire is like Jazz, which is one of the reasons why it's not the same in the WoD.

HUH?

In Barbershop, everyone is singing together, all four parts, at the same time. Everyone is in the battle at the same time, etc and need to contribute equally more or less at the same time.

In Jazz, you often find tag team solos; first they all play together, then the sax gets a solo while the rest fill in, then the trumpet gets a solo while the rest fills in, then the keyboard and so forth. So each character shines in their solos at the appropriate time, but you round robin the solos so that all cooperate. The noferatu does his thing, the Venture does his thing and the Malkavian does his thing, but not at the exact same time.

The Barbershop model fails even in the original AD&D model. Not everyone was equal in outdoors exploration, not everyone was equal in dungeon exploration, not everyone was equal in combat. As long as the inequality was not so great as to cause coplete player boredom at times the game could mamge. That doesn't mean that people can't complain about those times that could be managed. People complain all the time and with good reason; it's the only way to improve things.

tzor wrote:

shadzar wrote:Why is it that every edition of the so-called game of D&D states that people are supposed to work together and cooperate as the adventuring party, yet there is always so much moaning and whining about balance BETWEEN THE PLAYERS?

Clearly D&D is co-operatve, but that also means, by definition that all players need to be able to co-operate more or less co-equally.

This is right and probably where you should have stopped talking, but you continue the problem that many people have....

This implies that all player's characters need to be more or less blanaced, in at least the department where they contribute to the ongoing story plot line.

No it doesnt. The characters have no rights within the game, its exists for the players. The players having to right and ability to share the screen time, spotlight, whatever you wish to call it is all that matters.

The players having equal chance to participate does not equate to their characters having ANYTHING other than an existence in the world. If you are accepted into the group, you, as a player, should get equal chance to make a place in the story for yourself as each other player. What you do with that chance is up to you, not the game to dictate that for whatever reason your character has a chance to make the same impact on the story as another players.

Nobody has the right to stop you from trying to do something that will further the story for yourself AND the other players, only to stop you from destroying the game and taking away the ability to make choices from the other players.

I am not getting into the childish arguments of what if person A's right takes away person B's right... cause that is the whole crux of cooperation. Sometimes you have to give to get so in order to get somethings you must give up others... It is why the party is not one leader and 3 henchman, but each a player.

Again, if that player trying to always lead happens to be the wizard owner trying to control the story, and the other players dont like it, they can veto it. That is part of cooperation.

You must separate the player form the character and understand who it is for. Not all characters want to cooperate for the same in-story goal, but a long as the players are all cooperating for a fun game by all, then that is all that matters. When a single player tips the scale and tries to take more of the fun, or impede anothers fun for the sake of doing so, then a problem arises when the cooperation has broken down. (See cleric = walking med-kit.)

What D&D implies is that all PLAYERS have a right to play their character their way and to work with the others to make a shared story.

Characters have only the rights and life so long as the DM lets them....

Dave Noonan in his 4th edition gameplay video blog on WotC failed as a DM even with the superior "streamlined more balanced" game through the fact that players, not the Star Wars guy who was captured, were sitting and waiting for their turn to come while others took so long to figure out what to do. This is where many DMs in the past put a time limit on turns to stop the problem and have people be more focused and organized so that time wasnt wasted for anyone else, due to a player who couldn't get their act together. Players couldnt steal "screen time" from others by wasting everyones time to play by constantly looking things up. Be ready or be skipped, or whatever the consequence was.

So while advocating a good connection between player and character so that people are actually involved with the game and their character beyond a playing piece to enter the game world, you must separate yourself from the character while at the same time understanding the character gets the time given to it by the player, in the time they have to do things amongst the other players.

A reason where the concept of "don't split the party" came from, so that you didnt have people waiting for long periods of time while you resolve things with just one or a minority of the players.

There is no real in game calendar or stopwatch to state how much time in the story each character gets, but the players CAN be given equal amounts of time to affect the story and put their mark on it.

icyshadowlord wrote:Why do I feel like this whole class balance issue has been spawned from someone experiences in a party where every Wizard and Cleric (or just to make this simple, EVERY DAMN CASTER) wasted time obliterating the enemies instead of bothering to heal, buff or shield the melee classes.

Wouldn't healing, buffing, and shielding the melee classes be the waste of time when it is far easier and far faster to just obliterate the enemies? Tactically, the melee characters just get in the way. It's like a cop sending a kid with a pocket knife out to fight back robbers.

Holding back so that less competent team members can get a day in the spotlight is irresponsible when lives are on the line.


A cooperative game isn't balanced unless every character brings something valuable to the team. Otherwise it is just competent characters carrying everyone else.

The important question to ask is simple "If this character died right now would the team be any worse off?" If the answer is "no" then the game isn't balanced. If the team would be better off if the character died, then you've got a huge problem.

In high level D&D games, especially in 3.x, melee characters are a burden. It isn't mearly that they don't contribute anything useful, its that the casters have to waste resources supporting them, resources that could be better used solving the problem directly. They're a burden, and having characters that only serve as burdens is not at all balanced.

hyzmarca wrote:

icyshadowlord wrote:Why do I feel like this whole class balance issue has been spawned from someone experiences in a party where every Wizard and Cleric (or just to make this simple, EVERY DAMN CASTER) wasted time obliterating the enemies instead of bothering to heal, buff or shield the melee classes.

Wouldn't healing, buffing, and shielding the melee classes be the waste of time when it is far easier and far faster to just obliterate the enemies? Tactically, the melee characters just get in the way. It's like a cop sending a kid with a pocket knife out to fight back robbers.

Holding back so that less competent team members can get a day in the spotlight is irresponsible when lives are on the line.


A cooperative game isn't balanced unless every character brings something valuable to the team. Otherwise it is just competent characters carrying everyone else.

The important question to ask is simple "If this character died right now would the team be any worse off?" If the answer is "no" then the game isn't balanced. If the team would be better off if the character died, then you've got a huge problem.

In high level D&D games, especially in 3.x, melee characters are a burden. It isn't mearly that they don't contribute anything useful, its that the casters have to waste resources supporting them, resources that could be better used solving the problem directly. They're a burden, and having characters that only serve as burdens is not at all balanced.

Plus Fucking One.

Having seen this in action, I can tell you it's bad for both sides out of game as well, if the non-caster players are smart. They'll realize sooner or later than the only reason they are vaguely relevant is because the casters are propping them up and they'll come to resent that.

Meanwhile, the caster players will resent having to drag along Wastes of Space and burn resources to keep them relevant rather than doing something more practical with their time.

In addition, if you make the challenges simple enough that the "mundanes" can participate without getting splattered, the casters will likely get bored. On the flip side, if you present challenges that actually threaten the casters, the mundanes will get flattened.

And as a pre-emptive measure, the whole "well just selectively nerf the casters in each fight" argument needs to die, and anyone who proposes it is a mouthbreathing fuckwit.

I think Icy was being facetious on that one. I think he'll fit in well here.

Anyway, that's a reason I like the Tomes. The melee people do get their own ways to awesomely affect the battle. You don't need a cookie-cutter party and most classes have their own unique shticks.

The Barbarian goes "GRARRR I HIT IT WITH MY AXE HULK SMASH" and goes crazy-nuts.

The Monk says "I have attained enlightenment and now I will use it to kick your kidney out through your ear. Celestial Flea Kick."

The Fighter says "Look at you, now look at me. Back to you, back to me. Sadly you're not me or you wouldn't be spinning in circles trying to keep up with me. But you can at least be killed by me. Look at my hand--it's a sword, back to me, back to my hand, now it's a bow. Point Blank Shot.",

And the Samurai says "Cherry blossoms fall / I strike your honorless head / See how I KIAI!"

the whole "well just selectively nerf the casters in each fight" argument needs to die, and anyone who proposes it is a mouthbreathing fuckwit.

But if every fight takes place an anti-magic field, they're not overpowered!

Psychic Robot wrote:

the whole "well just selectively nerf the casters in each fight" argument needs to die, and anyone who proposes it is a mouthbreathing fuckwit.

But if every fight takes place an anti-magic field, they're not overpowered!

I've seen a guy honestly argue that. And use it liberally. Trying to say at level 2, people can get an item which provides a anti-magic field with their WBL.

Seriously? Anti-magic field as a method to nerf casters? How often did they plan to use that in the actual game (assuming someone did actually try that in their campaign)? Because I can imagine a lot of trouble brewing from that kind of tactic if the DM isn't careful.

icyshadowlord wrote:Seriously? Anti-magic field as a method to nerf casters? How often did they plan to use that in the actual game (assuming someone did actually try that in their campaign)? Because I can imagine a lot of trouble brewing from that kind of tactic if the DM isn't careful.

Summary: Not very well. DM was a douchebag. I'll pull up the thread...

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=52011

There we go.

Those A-M fields somehow never affected the NPCs.

Psychic Robot wrote:But if every fight takes place an anti-magic field, they're not overpowered!

You don't even have to go that far to show how a wizard shouldn't be able to dominate fights...

I hear dungeon-crawling is all the rage, and not every dungeon has a big open space where combat would exist that would allow for a wizard to blast with a fireball or lightning blast without risking grave injury to the party as well.

Again, the thought experiment that wizards are so powerful exists in the vacuum of the thought experiment where they are given the optimal chance to use their optimized spells.

This isnt even about nerfing casters, but coming to the point that a dungeon, a place made to help prevent people from getting in or out, wouldn't be designed for 3 or even 2 abreast to go down, but jsut enough space to get down when needed. Purposefully creating bottlenecks to cause problems with fighting in either entering or escaping by the small number, or even large number of people.

If you are out in the open fighting a dragon, you damn well better be glad the wizard is there with the reach and direct hits that can do the damage, but in the cramped smaller places, the wizard becomes useless with those high powered area effect spells.

People somehow overlook that.

@hyzmarca: No the buffing and such does not become lesser to the direct damage. Again look at smaller spaces as opposed to wide open ones, and the ability to deflect more damage to all can be greater than a single amount of damage done to one.

A buff spell that can deflect say 8 damage per other of the 4 party members, is greater than a single spell dealing 20 damage.

Different areas require different tactics, so one focusing only on big open field tactics will be highly fucked in close quarters. Where big damage spells can be used, they work great, but other times the support and backup is better than a direct attack.

EXAMPLE: In EQ people would be in a waiting area to offer buffs to others going off into fights, so the others could have lesser people for a greater share of the XP each. An Enchanter wasnt just invited, but was sought for KEI and a cleric sought for other buffs prior to going into battle. This way the melee fighters could do the damage needed without having to watch for the weaker defensed character.

Squishy low protected wizards are a damn good first target, and if they are only dealing mass damage if/when they can, sucks when they die before they get the attack off and then everyone is left shorted from them because the buffs could keep the rest going longer without the wizard.

That +1 to hit every time, means greater damage your party members can do because greater chance to hit and do damage on a larger scale than a single attack that might just hit.

It really depends on the tactics you wish to employ and are available and usable during a combat.

This goes for clerics and wizards alike, and viewing them as one thing, means that when they run out, it is your fault for using the tool incorrectly.

So remember more fights are had within the tiny tunnels of Moria near the bridge than are had on the plains outside of Helm's Deep.

If you are out in the open fighting a dragon, you damn well better be glad the wizard is there with the reach and direct hits that can do the damage, but in the cramped smaller places, the wizard becomes useless with those high powered area effect spells.

You know shadzar all this stuff you are talking about it doesn't seem like you really have played a wizard, since you don't need a wide open space to be a badass as a wizard.

I've never played as a Wizard either, but I doubt that really matters on the whole. This was about co-operation, not of the classic Fighter vs. Wizard debate, though it kinda links to this all in one aspect.

And that reminded me...don't area of effects work all the same even in tight spaces?

icyshadowlord wrote:I've never played as a Wizard either, but I doubt that really matters on the whole. This was about co-operation, not of the classic Fighter vs. Wizard debate, though it kinda links to this all in one aspect.

And that reminded me...don't area of effects work all the same even in tight spaces?

Some, but others can adapt...a spell taking up 20 cubic feet will take 20 cubic feet, something like cloudkill is 40x20x20, spell like fireball with a 20 foot radius will take it up, so catching your friends in it is not a fun thing to do and not effective if it cannot fill the entire volume.

So while playing a wizard and start shooting lightning through your friends to get the enemies as well, you aren't going to have very friendly friends after the use of the spell. Cause with friends who shoot lightning through you, who needs enimas!

@Leress: Yes played a wizard in all editions prior to 3rd.

shadzar wrote:
@Leress: Yes played a wizard in all editions prior to 3rd.

Only 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

Leress wrote:

shadzar wrote:
@Leress: Yes played a wizard in all editions prior to 3rd.

Only 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

huh?

shadzar wrote:

Leress wrote:

shadzar wrote:
@Leress: Yes played a wizard in all editions prior to 3rd.

Only 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

huh?

Sorry I thought you were asking me a question.

So you don't what playing a wizard in 3rd. See as I said you don't need a wide open space to take out the enemy. You have rays and a good number of spells are just line of sight.

icyshadowlord wrote:Seriously? Anti-magic field as a method to nerf casters? How often did they plan to use that in the actual game (assuming someone did actually try that in their campaign)? Because I can imagine a lot of trouble brewing from that kind of tactic if the DM isn't careful.

Only one campaign that I know of. It was based on an anti-magic field generating item known as "Cold Iron." On the other hand, the place was also filled with rust monsters. Everyone was vulnerable, in their own way.