D&D is a cooperative RPG

[icyshadowlord]

...that's...a tough one. The only one that comes to mind is superior strength in comparison to the (usually) squishy/squeamish Wizards and/or Rogues of the party. Basically, Intimidate checks and physical contests that are determined by Strength-based skills checks. Not much else that comes to mind.

[Novembermike]

Fighters contribute...what, again?

This come to where people say D&D is flawed and has no direction, but others see it as a boon that you can take it any direction.

D&D fits in sword and sorcery, low-fantasy, high-fantasy....it isnt just one. So when you decide to go high fantasy or high magic, then you take it in a direction you must make it fit into. Populating the world with thousands of wizards goes in the same direction that leads to elves taking over the world.

DnD is almost completely worthless for anything besides a few high fantasy settings.

[shadzar]

How about you explain what unique abilities you think fighters have to contribute to the story?

Tell me what advantage the race car has over the thimble when playing monopoly?

That is what the classes are...it is not for the class to offer things for the story...as most they only do offer things for the combat, but a bit of a medium for the story. The players offer everything they have to the story. While viewing only the classes as finite combat structure sicne the book only presents rules for that for the most part, you are missing the vast majority of the game.

D&D cant tell you how to roleplay, it can only offer the "game" parts, as the types of stories you want to tell, worlds you want to play in, etc vary. See Lago in wanting to prevent certain types of killing from D&D all together to make it less morally repulsive. D&D offers that, but not rules for it. It is open-ended, maybe too much for some to comprehend.

I dont view the game through my character sheet. It is there IF/when anything on it is needed.

This i think is where NWPs became hard parts of the game, for those people that couldnt figure out what to do, so gave them some options because they really didnt understand D&D or it was too open for them and not direct in telling them what to play when. So feats came to be.

I went to a D&D thing for the free mini playing 3rd once. There was new players that never played and we were given the intro and one player was asked what he wanted to do and looked dumbfounded at the character sheet right away. Then again stated, what can I do... The DM told him whatever he thought his character would do. The new player was still confused. I offered to explain and both agreed, and I tookt he character sheet form him and set it down then looked at him and asked where are we, who else is here, and why are we here. He knew all that form the intro mostly. Then I asked him this simple question "Ok if you are the character standing there in this room and wanting to do something, what would you do if it was you?" He came up with something right away and asked if he could. The DM replied, sure hold on and let me check on this or that, and asked for somethign form the character sheet, which I showed the new player where it was after hunting it down myself (i dont play 3rd nor know the layout of the standard sheet).

This new player got REALLY interested then and stopped worrying about the large groups of numbers and looked at the equipment, thought of ways to use it and the things in the tavern we were in. This is what the fighter and wizard have to offer...what the player brings with them to the game.

Many people are getting bogged down with all the numbers on the sheet and forgetting a major part of the game. The rules are there to help WHEN they are needed. Otherwise the player is the focus of the game and what they would or can do.

This may be where the whole MMO problem and the 4th edition roles came form, because people viewing their characters as the combat role. View it as a living breathing character in a story, and what YOU have to offer, is what you bring with you to the character. The little bit of rules the game has is but a way to get some things done, not the entirety of the game.

Ergo... play the game, not the rules.

So if you bring nothing to the table with which you are able to play a fighter, then YOU have nothing to offer as one.

Maybe D&D5 is better, since it removes all that work of bringing something to the character.

[Archmage]

So you admit that you've got nothing?

[shadzar]

So you admit that you've got nothing?

No, i'm saying you have nothing to offer to the game, thus you cannot figure out how to even play D&D. You view it solely a a tactical combat game like many others that 4th edition was made for.

You are claiming something is broken without even putting it through its paces.

[Maj]

What shadzar is saying is that the players aren't limited to actions on their character sheet when it comes to actions.

Some things fighters can do that are not in the realm of character sheets include carrying luggage, handing you your tools and equipment, pulling out the chair for the princess at dinner, whittling (turning wood into wood chips), hanging up your coat, setting up and breaking down camp, chopping firewood, burying the dead, holding your hair while you vomit, washing the dishes, gambling, drinking beer, helping you get dressed, passing the salt, wringing your clothes dry after being washed, whistling, grinding spices in a mortar and pestle, giving you a boost into a tree or over a fence, and cleaning up after your dog on its walk.

I have no idea why you people insist the fighter is useless.

[Wrathzog]

That's been the entire premise of his thread as far as I can tell.

Pen and Paper games in general are a Cooperative story telling medium.
I think we can all agree with that.

The issue that we can't agree on is figuring out who is responsible for enforcing this cooperative play.

Most of us think that it's up to the gaming system. By providing roughly balanced choices to players, you don't have situations where one player feels completely left out of a game because they didn't know that playing Fighters is a trap.

Shadzar is positive that the responsibility falls on the players. That the game system doesn't matter as long as you're willing to change the rules or kick "problem" players out of your gaming group to make room for more "cooperative" players.

[Leress]

I have no idea why you people insist the fighter is useless.

Probably because all those actions you just mentioned can be applied to any character. Since that is something that is equal to everyone, most of us here look at the combat mini game and try to make that fair for the players.

The issue that we can't agree on is figuring out who is responsible for enforcing this cooperative play.

Both the players should be more or less cooperative and the system should encourage that.

[Plebian]

What shadzar is saying is that the players aren't limited to actions on their character sheet when it comes to actions.

Some things fighters can do that are not in the realm of character sheets include carrying luggage, handing you your tools and equipment, pulling out the chair for the princess at dinner, whittling (turning wood into wood chips), hanging up your coat, setting up and breaking down camp, chopping firewood, burying the dead, holding your hair while you vomit, washing the dishes, gambling, drinking beer, helping you get dressed, passing the salt, wringing your clothes dry after being washed, whistling, grinding spices in a mortar and pestle, giving you a boost into a tree or over a fence, and cleaning up after your dog on its walk.

I have no idea why you people insist the fighter is useless.

that is the best sarcastic support of shadzar yet

So you admit that you've got nothing?

No, i'm saying you have nothing to offer to the game, thus you cannot figure out how to even play D&D. You view it solely a a tactical combat game like many others that 4th edition was made for.

You are claiming something is broken without even putting it through its paces.

I like that you've changed your argument from "Wizards aren't broken because they can purposefully not take spells that are broken" to "you just haven't played the classes enough"

well done

[hyzmarca]

What shadzar is saying is that the players aren't limited to actions on their character sheet when it comes to actions.

Some things fighters can do that are not in the realm of character sheets include carrying luggage, handing you your tools and equipment, pulling out the chair for the princess at dinner, whittling (turning wood into wood chips), hanging up your coat, setting up and breaking down camp, chopping firewood, burying the dead, holding your hair while you vomit, washing the dishes, gambling, drinking beer, helping you get dressed, passing the salt, wringing your clothes dry after being washed, whistling, grinding spices in a mortar and pestle, giving you a boost into a tree or over a fence, and cleaning up after your dog on its walk.

I have no idea why you people insist the fighter is useless.

But you can just Gate in a Solar to pick up your dog's poop and the Cleric can cast Miracle to dry the party's clothes.

[Wrathzog]

Both the players should be more or less cooperative and the system should encourage that.

That's true, but I like making the assumption that you like the people that you play PnP games with. Which is why I've been ignoring it. It's not something a game designer can or should be relying on when he's making a game.

Since that is something that is equal to everyone, most of us here look at the combat mini game and try to make that fair for the players.

That's not true. The non-combat stuff needs to be fair too.

And really, it's not even that Wizards can do everything. The real problem is that fighters contribute almost nothing to a party. They hit things with a sword. And that's all.

(this is to Shadzar)
And you can't say that the player brings stuff to the table either. That's not what Role Playing is. It's acting in a manner that is consistent with your character. It's written out very clearly in the PHB, "It's your job [as the player] to decide what your character is like, how he or she relates to the other adventurers, and act accordingly."
You can't be useful because you think you are or because you want to be. Characters have attributes and stats that determine who they are and the player acts based off of that information.
Fighters are mechanically hamstrung to be useless. That's all there is to it. That is bad for a game claiming to be about cooperation.

(Edits for Clarification. Got to C from A without mentioning B.)

[Maj]

that is the best sarcastic support of shadzar yet

[Novembermike]

So you admit that you've got nothing?

No, i'm saying you have nothing to offer to the game, thus you cannot figure out how to even play D&D. You view it solely a a tactical combat game like many others that 4th edition was made for.

You are claiming something is broken without even putting it through its paces.

DnD is terrible at everything but the combat. If you want to have a system that actually provides meaningful rules for non-combat stuff you're better off with GURPS, FATE, Dresden Files or any number of other systems that give you a relatively well rounded system by default.

[shadzar]

I dont need a system for roll-playing like skill-challenges. I can roleplaying. I dont need mechanics for it nor want them.

(this is to Shadzar)
And you can't say that the player brings stuff to the table either. That's not what Role Playing is. It's acting in a manner that is consistent with your character. It's written out very clearly in the PHB, "It's your job [as the player] to decide what your character is like, how he or she relates to the other adventurers, and act accordingly."
You can't be useful because you think you are or because you want to be. Characters have attributes and stats that determine who they are and the player acts based off of that information.

Throw that bit world for word on what roleplaying is in MGuy's thread how about it.

Fighters are mechanically hamstrung to be useless. That's all there is to it. That is bad for a game claiming to be about cooperation.

Yet there are countless people out there who played and still do play fighters under editions prior to 3rd, 3rd, and editions after 3rd; and they and their groups enjoy them playing the fighter.

People are saying the fighter is useless with no basis for the claim. I cant see it as useless or even where you consider it to be so except for uncooperative play during combat, so I cant fathom where to even begin to refute the claim.

Someone is going to have to give me some place substantial outside of the combat, where a fighter is useless.

Over the years I have sen the same arguments about screen time, combat effectiveness, etc...and each time this comes up with fighter v wizard as the prime example, what it boils down to is a single case scenario/combat that is being evaluated.

What I have seen common in all these discussions and debates is one thing, where the cooperation is not effective for the group.

Who is responsible for the cooperation..the game only supplies rules for situational result calculation. All the numbers just tell you how to resolve a situation once a course of action is given. EVERYTHING else about the game MUST come form the players.

Leress says it should come from both players and the game, but many dont see it does already. The game just provides a set of tools. For the players to build something with those tools, they must first all understand what they are building, so they are building the same thing, then put in the effort to build it TOGETHER.

The game cannot offer group therapy or counseling. The group must make itself work...and that goes beyond D&D, or any single game. If the group doesnt work, then nothing they do will.

Watch this podcast, you will see what poor group dynamics have come to D&D. Every player is jsut doing their own thing as a group of individuals. Sure they basically have the same goal, but are NOT working together towards it. Their plan is to have no plan. Just send everyone in to do their own thing. No tactic was discused or figured out, we know the group was jsut thrown together so have no idea how each other plays, let alone the game itself. So the group mechanic is a total failure for that group. They never discussed what they would do in the event of a fight.

This is where the group dynamic overrides the continuous wizard stealing the spotlight. Not by the wizard holding back, but the wizard doing something in the fight that the group (not some 4th edition role) decides that players character in this group is good for or at. Older editions I say plenty of wizards in more of a support position, and the amount and strength of spells they had were not much less in terms of power. The group just doesnt work together because they dont work as a group, but a cluster of individuals just along for the ride on the rest of them.

This is what D&D has become. Just a bunch of individuals together playing piggyback on each other rather than working together for a shared goal. If the rogue didnt barge in, then things would likely have gone better for the group. 4th is supposed to be balanced combat effectiveness, and sure looks it if not flawed in many areas, but no matter how balanced you make everything even giving everyone the exact same everything...it wont work if you have someone trying to outdo another or not working together or worrying about kill-stealing or whatever the problem is that the players arent working together as a group.

How much more clear can the game been when it sets up its objective as a cooperative game played for a common goal? Does the game and the books have to say over and over within the rules for each class, race, feat, etc and remind players that they are not creating a character to work alone, but as a group?

What more can the books do to express this to players save for place it in the players book where most of the character creation is found?

When do the players become responsible for remembering to cooperate and work together?

[Archmage]

The players are always responsible for cooperating and working together.

If players don't all have the same abilities, they aren't cooperating. They might be working together, but they aren't a team of equals. Some people are stars and the rest are extras. You can only really share victory properly when everyone can contribute equally. If the team would have performed just as well without you as with you, you aren't a meaningful part of the team.

What part of this is unclear? Are you sure D&D isn't too complicated for you to understand?

[shadzar]

Carpenters, plumbers, and electricians all cooperate and work together but dont have the same abilities. Explain this phenomenon.

You are hung up on equal.

You are also AGAIN confusing players with characters.

If players don't all have the same abilities, they aren't cooperating.

I find in most games (not just D&D or RPGs) the players do NOT all have the same abilities...funny how that quarterback cooperates with the wide receiver since they have different abilities.

Come back after you learn the difference between PLAYER and CHARACTER.

[Plebian]

I think he means abilities of roughly the same importance to the game, but he didn't phrase it all that well.

here's the thing people have been stressing; every player should, ideally, have a similar level of influence on the game. this isn't a quarterback/wide receiver deal, this is a linebacker/85-pound-dude-from-AV-club deal. yeah, they can play the same game, but guess who's going to have a good time doing it?

bingo! the one who can contribute immensely more than the other! the 85-pound guy is just going either get smeared by things well outside of his ability to influence the game or his team is going to form a protective bubble around him and he won't have fun because any victory attributed to him won't be his.

[Wrathzog]

People are saying the fighter is useless with no basis for the claim. I cant see it as useless or even where you consider it to be so except for uncooperative play during combat, so I cant fathom where to even begin to refute the claim.

It's called compare Class Features. (Protip: The Fighter doesn't have any)
The one thing a Fighter can do is bring damage to a fight and no one cares because they're too busy instantly killing people.
Meanwhile, the Wizard can literally Dominate Social Encounters or otherwise fly over any situation that would require a skill check for mundane people.

The fighter on the other hand has probably dumped his Intelligence and Charisma attributes. He will never be able to contribute meaningfully to an in-game conversation because he's borderline retarded and an asshole. In fact, his party takes pains to make sure that he doesn't say anything to anyone because no one is going to appreciate the guy whose only form of communication is Intimidation.

[Bobikus]

So basically there's no reason for DnD's system to even exist. It's unneeded for out of combat roleplaying, and the system is broken in combat unless the casters aren't allowed to use their more effective spell combos or no one plays fighter classes.

[Blasted]

So basically there's no reason for DnD's system to even exist. It's unneeded for out of combat roleplaying, and the system is broken in combat unless the casters aren't allowed to use their more effective spell combos or no one plays fighter classes.

... and that class, is how we got 4th edition.

[Archmage]

Carpenters, plumbers, and electricians all cooperate and work together but dont have the same abilities. Explain this phenomenon.

I wouldn't want a electrician and a plumber doing the same job. I'm pretty sure electricians don't know anything about fixing toilets.

[Novembermike]

Carpenters, plumbers, and electricians all cooperate and work together but dont have the same abilities. Explain this phenomenon.

A carpenter, a plumber and an electrician all go into a bathroom to fix a toilet.

[tenuki]

RANT ALERT

I simply refuse to play a game where the main source for XP, and therefore character development in terms of the system, is to kill stuff. On the one hand, this is because the idea that killing stuff should be conducive to learning is shaped very differently from everything else that is going on in my poor brain.

More importantly, no matter how cooperative you want your game to be, kill XPs remain an inducement for players to min/max, powergame and compete. Add the Himalayas-sized desgn flaw that the power progression of non-casters is roughly linear while that of casters is exponential, and you get a ruleset that is completely at odds with the alleged objective of the game, which is to tell a cool genre story with cool characters in it where everybody gets their share of the limelight.

Of course you could argue that in a game played in a truly cooperative spirit, players would not succumb to the above temptations. But if ignoring the XP generation method is the solution, then why bother with such crap at all?

IMO, kill XPs are simply a turd-smelling residue from a certain 1960s hobby horse wargame that RPG designers somehow didn't get around to scraping off the soles of their shoes in 45 years.

[Seerow]

So, why is it the argument keeps cropping up that the problem comes from people focusing on in combat encounters and optimizing to kill monsters/bad people, and if the focus is taken off that, Fighters and other weaker classes are fine?

Seriously, they're not. If anything, if you take combat out of the picture, Fighter, Monk, etc, get -even worse-. Believe it or not you can optimize a Fighter to be able to take out an equal level CR at almost every level. (Sure at higher levels you start running into stuff that traps you in a force cage, or whatever, but these things can be worked around, especially with magic items.

What makes the Wizard and the like so broken is their absurd flexibility. Yes, they can dominate an encounter, and wipe out encounters several levels above the CR they should be able to handle, but their problem goes far further than that. They also have the spells to let them dominate outside of combat, replacing skills, or doing silly things that really have no parallel. Name -one- out of combat situation that any of the classes that are generally considered weak can do that a Wizard can't to better and faster?

If you take the focus away from combat, and shift it to out of combat, the Wizard just eclipses things further. One of the reasons rogues generally stand up as a stronger class while a Fighter does not, isn't because of sneak attack. A fighter can match the damage a rogue puts out with sneak attack. No, it's because they have lots of skillpoints, and great skills to invest in them. (Well that and UMD which lets them pretend like they're wizards in terms of utility with enough money).

The problem isn't bad players trying to optimize and steal the spotlight, it isn't that the game focuses too much on combat, it's that the game didn't give a large chunk of classes the flexibility or ability to compete in a number of areas.

[tenuki]

I wouldn't say it's THE problem, but the point is certainly valid.