I still hope 5e encourages cooperative play

And I hope that it does so by giving every class useful things to do to aid others in the party.

I hope rogues can blind opponents by throwing blinding powder in opponents faces and other dirty tricks.

I hope clerics can heal and buff their party with prayers.

I hope paladins can heal and protect the party.

I hope warriors can control the battlefield by limiting opponents movement, brute force shoving them around or even tricking them with footwork or feints.

I hope wizards can have a wide range of utility options and ways of attacking that do not necessarily target hp but are not overpowered.

These are just some examples but what I don't want is for "I hit it" in any form to be the only viable/reliable option UNLESS the player of that character chooses to do so.

 
I agree,

Though I must say no edition of D&D thus far has prevented this.  It would have been done in different ways

In 2e, a DM might have had them make a ranged attack and if it hit the enemy had to save vs. breath weapon (since the powder might be coming out as a cloud of smoke)

In 3e, a DM might have them make a ranged touch attack and if it hit, the enemy may need to roll reflex.

In 4e, a DM might have the player make Dex vs. Reflex attack and if it succeeds the enemy is blinded (save ends).  

Even in previous editions every character had options besides "I hit", the issue is more of what unique options does my character have.  Now if that's what your looking for that's a dragon of a different color. 
Welcome to ZomboniLand - My D&D Blog http://zomboniland.blogspot.com/
I agree,

Though I must say no edition of D&D thus far has prevented this.  It would have been done in different ways

In 2e, a DM might have had them make a ranged attack and if it hit the enemy had to save vs. breath weapon (since the powder might be coming out as a cloud of smoke)

In 3e, a DM might have them make a ranged touch attack and if it hit, the enemy may need to roll reflex.

In 4e, a DM might have the player make Dex vs. Reflex attack and if it succeeds the enemy is blinded (save ends).  

Even in previous editions every character had options besides "I hit", the issue is more of what unique options does my character have.  Now if that's what your looking for that's a dragon of a different color. 



These sorts of things did not work well in my experience in previous editions as improvisations because they were not well backed up by guidelines and mechanics.

Guidelines would still be needed but the mechanics might be as little as "Rogues get advantage on dirty tricks maneuver improvisations"

That would be one way to encourage improvs and teamwork.

(I still like the way torg did this- maneuvers and interaction abilities were encouraged by rewarding you with additional benefit cards that could be spent for various things like autohit, automiss for opponent,  and even plothook things like contacts or romantic interest)
 
If it doesn't reward teamwork then 5e will be just another piece of out of date junk.  I mean console RPGs had this back in the 90s?  That's 20 years ago, if you can't find a good way to work that in to your pen and paper RPG then you have no business designing games.

Fortunately I think they have the mechanics in place to support teamwork.  You could sacrifice a CS dice to give everyone a +2 to hit that target until the end of your next turn, or sacrifice one or more sneak attack dice to make everyone who hits the target deal extra damage until end of next turn.  Clerics passing out small defensive bonuses is pretty much a no brainer.
Meh, teamwork has always been part of the game.  I see no need to codify it beyond the obvious 'achieve the mission, get the rewards' stuff that's always been there.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

@Grizley: Play any computer games recently where you created your team on the level of goldbox games? 

Fable? Nope... just me.

Dragon Age and Mass Effect - I bet I could have soloed those games, and I'm pretty sure some did.  And the story certainly was all about me.

If anything - video games have totally thrown out the ensemble.

====

That being said - I don't care about teamwork powers at all.

I DID like 4th Editions "teamwork feats" though - that was an interesting train of thought.

I'd rather see teamwork in something like a skill challenge.. than in something like combat.

Cause technically - something so simple as "Focus Fire" is teamwork - and there is unlikely a RPG anywhere - where that isn't useful.
Meh, teamwork has always been part of the game.  I see no need to codify it beyond the obvious 'achieve the mission, get the rewards' stuff that's always been there.




I have not ever said it did not exist in any edition.

What I have said and continue to say is I have found that it is encouraged more by some systems (in my experience) and I hope that 5th ed continues to do so in some fashion.

It can be by giving specific powers (which 4th did)

It can be by giving bonuses to improv/teamwork type actions based on class

It can be by some other mechanic entirely (Like I've said before my favorite method was probably how Torg did it but I know that won't happen)
 
It can be different ways for different classes (powers for casters, improv bonuses to non casters)

I don't really care so long as ALL can participate in it effectively at some level other than "I hit it" if they hoose to do so

 
I have not ever said it did not exist in any edition.



And just where did I accuse you of doing any such thing?  Good lord, people.  If we're all a li'l less defensive maybe threads won't turn into total fests every time we disagree.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Is this why they in a party? To work together to achieve a goal? 
Is this why they in a party? To work together to achieve a goal? 



One can only hope... some people seem to think that adventuring parties are just a group that happened to be going the same direction at level 1 and forgot why by the time they got there so they stuck together for 20-30 levels.
A game system can only promote coopreative play so far.... in the end it's still up to the DM/GM and Players to actually role play.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
If you have a table full of competitive players, your D&D game will be uncooperative no matter what edition you play.  D&D isn't for people who prefer competitive games.

Teamwork in every RPG I've ever played has been dependent on the personality of the players, and the degree of that teamwork has been reflected by that as well.  

4e forced teamwork upon you in a sort of dicsconnected way, but the spirit of it still was left in the hands of the group to embrace or reject.

Currently playtesting Murder in Baldur's Gate with the current iteration of D&D Next.

Also running a 2nd edition AD&D game.

Has D&D ever not encouraged cooperative play? Maybe I am missing something here, but I remember in every edition it is the party vs challenge X. I don't think a player has to be defined by a role such as Controller, etc...play your character how you envision it. Work together as a party. That's all the clarification and mechanics I need.
Also, on the gripe of the lack of a cleric as far as 'roles' go, it's your job to assess the risks as a player and keep yourself alive.  If you die, you probably made a bad choice.  The same real life rules should apply in a D&D game when it comes to thinking your way through a problem.  It's also your job to ask for clarification of the scenario as it moves along so you have the best chance of surviving.

Currently playtesting Murder in Baldur's Gate with the current iteration of D&D Next.

Also running a 2nd edition AD&D game.

While teamwork is of course useful in terms of group tactics there isn't anything as of yet in the play test material that provides mechanical benefits for teamwork. There wasn't really anything in 3e either. 4e on the other hand felt like a group chess game at times. I would prefer something in between.
Play by Post forums are very new and attractive to both group and solo play.  Group play should reward for what it is.  Teamwork.  However, sometimes a player might find themselves going down the corridors alone.  I would like 5E to support any instance.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

If you have a table full of competitive players, your D&D game will be uncooperative no matter what edition you play.  D&D isn't for people who prefer competitive games.



Actually, I've experienced differently. Competitive players tend to be great team players (though some could come off as demanding and arrogant). If anything, it's the show-offs that are most prone to single-minded and uncoordinated behavior.
If you have a table full of competitive players, your D&D game will be uncooperative no matter what edition you play.  D&D isn't for people who prefer competitive games.



Actually, I've experienced differently. Competitive players tend to be great team players (though some could come off as demanding and arrogant). If anything, it's the show-offs that are most prone to single-minded and uncoordinated behavior.



Would you elaborate on what you mean by "Competitive players tend to be great team players"?  I've found that it's hard for someone to curb that me-first mentality.

I think the situations you have encountered may have been simply people who like to game, and didn't prefer competition to cooperative play. 

I would argue that the competitive ones /are/ the show-offs.  It's how competitiveness manifests itself in D&D games. 

Currently playtesting Murder in Baldur's Gate with the current iteration of D&D Next.

Also running a 2nd edition AD&D game.

As much as I'm not a 3E/3.5 fan, I will say that it absolutely fostered teamwork, at least on the part of the wizard I played. At 18th level, and with the leadership feat to have a Healer 12/Marshall 4 cohort (or something like that), I put out an extraordinary amount of all-day party buffing. Bulls Strength, Bears Endurance, Cats Grace, you name it. Then, my favorite low level spell was Benign Transposition. The charging monk would flying kick the enemy, and I"d swap his space with the fighter. Then the fighter would full-attack. Next round, the monk would charge again. Did much more damage for a 1st level spell then Magic Missile.

4E is better at it, and the buffs are far more manageable than in previous editions. No more 2 hours spent in front of spreadsheets before the game to figure out everyone's all day buffs. But 3.5 definitely fostered teamwork.

I share the hope that we'll see this in D&D Next, but it sseems unlikely that it won't be there.
As much as I'm not a 3E/3.5 fan, I will say that it absolutely fostered teamwork, at least on the part of the wizard I played. At 18th level, and with the leadership feat to have a Healer 12/Marshall 4 cohort (or something like that), I put out an extraordinary amount of all-day party buffing. Bulls Strength, Bears Endurance, Cats Grace, you name it. Then, my favorite low level spell was Benign Transposition. The charging monk would flying kick the enemy, and I"d swap his space with the fighter. Then the fighter would full-attack. Next round, the monk would charge again. Did much more damage for a 1st level spell then Magic Missile.

4E is better at it, and the buffs are far more manageable than in previous editions. No more 2 hours spent in front of spreadsheets before the game to figure out everyone's all day buffs. But 3.5 definitely fostered teamwork.

I share the hope that we'll see this in D&D Next, but it sseems unlikely that it won't be there.



Yes in 3.5 a wizard or cleric had teamwork oriented abilities if they so chose to use them. 
A fighter - not so much it was pretty much I hit it.
 
Even a Fighter could have team focused abilities.  If there's a Rogue in the party, he could flank or trip.  That adds a lot of damage to the mix.  3.5 had plenty of cooperative mechanics.  It just didn't tell you what or where they were.

That said, the important bit is what we want to see as far as this stuff goes in 5e.  In that, I'm with Lawolf. 
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]



Would you elaborate on what you mean by "Competitive players tend to be great team players"?  I've found that it's hard for someone to curb that me-first mentality.

I think the situations you have encountered may have been simply people who like to game, and didn't prefer competition to cooperative play. 

I would argue that the competitive ones /are/ the show-offs.  It's how competitiveness manifests itself in D&D games. 



Hmmm... I see what's going on here. I wasn't using the literal term of 'competitive players'. Rather, I'm using it more in terms of "players who are also adept at competitive games".  So in your definition, if the players are constantly trying to outdo each other then yeah, I agree, there's going to be little cooperation between them.

Gaming jargon can be so confusing at times.


Would you elaborate on what you mean by "Competitive players tend to be great team players"?  I've found that it's hard for someone to curb that me-first mentality.

I think the situations you have encountered may have been simply people who like to game, and didn't prefer competition to cooperative play. 

I would argue that the competitive ones /are/ the show-offs.  It's how competitiveness manifests itself in D&D games. 



Hmmm... I see what's going on here. I wasn't using the literal term of 'competitive players'. Rather, I'm using it more in terms of "players who are also adept at competitive games".  So in your definition, if the players are constantly trying to outdo each other then yeah, I agree, there's going to be little cooperation between them.

Gaming jargon can be so confusing at times.



I think you had it right the first time.

Competetive and mature players realize hey if I use this ability that does 5 less damage but prones the enemy then my two friends that go next will more than make up that difference...

Competitive immature people will no matter what the system use their biggest ability first, keep tabs on who did how much damage etc and never ever take a power that sacrificed any amount of damage for utility.

The difference is who you're competiting with, the mature competitive player is competing against the adventure and doesn't mind that he can't brag to the adventure he totally kicked it's ass while still wanting to kick it's ass. The immature player cares less about how his group does in the adventure and more about bragging to his friend that his sorcerer totally did more damage/killed more things than his friends enabler warlord.

My group tends to be competitive and mature.  We like to set goals for our selves like everyone ending the day with at least half their surges left.  Taking 0 damage in 3/5 of the fights for the day.  Never allowing an enemy controller an action or things like that.  We love the Casque of tactics, for people who aren't up on 4e that's an item that lets you swap your init out for someone elses.  If everyone has one then you can completely rearrange your init roles 2x a day.  It's a very low level item but incredibly powerful when it lets you make sure the right guy goes first, be it getting the striker to kill the leader before he goes, the controller dropping a darkness to block off the battlefield or letting the defender charge in and mark before the enemies run wild. 
Sign In to post comments