|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:25AM
#1
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
One worry I have about Next is the notion of team play being built into the system like it was in 4th edition.
I would rather Next leave it up to the players to initiate team play. It's almost like 4th edition was built with the idea that only complete strangers would be gaming together so they needed to build the game where team play was forced.
In our group the spellcasters didn't try and take over by attempting to do it all by themselves. Buffing the melee classes always proved to be a wiser choice than trying to go at it alone.
The 15 minute work day was never a problem in our group because the DM always saw to it that it was a bad idea and he wouldn't even give us a chance to have the 15 minute work day. Now it did happen at times but it never proved to be a problem.
Now I'm honestly not sure how Next would be able to do both but I hope they leave it open for players to decide how they want to do team play.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:27AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Well, it is a role-playing game, so the idea that characters should be segregated into distinct roles where they all rely on each other for success would seem to be part of the premise, right?
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:35AM
#3
|
|
|
Well, it is a role-playing game, so the idea that characters should be segregated into distinct roles where they all rely on each other for success would seem to be part of the premise, right?
What is this I don't even...
"Well it -is- a hamburger, so the idea that ham should be in it would seem to be part of the premise, right?"
"Well it -is- a driveway, so the idea that people should drive on it would seem to be part of the premise, right?"
I don't think it will be built into the rules, though. They've already noted that the game should accommodate 1 to 10 characters (as a sample range), so forcing teamwork is...kinna hard to do with 1 person.  By the same token, I don't think there will be much way of -avoiding- teamwork if there is more than 1 player, either.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:39AM
#4
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
Well, it is a role-playing game, so the idea that characters should be segregated into distinct roles where they all rely on each other for success would seem to be part of the premise, right?
Players should decide how they work together, not the system.
The system should present options that allow the players to decide how they want to use them to achieve team play that they are comfortable with.
Our group preferred 3rd edition because, to us, it didn't matter who was doing what and how much damage "X" was supposed to be doing. We had some players who excelled in social situations but sucked in combat, that was okay though because that was the way the character was designed. We always felt that as long as you were contributing in "any" way during the campaign then there wasn't a problem.
If D&D Next can present a system that allows for more freedom in this regards then that will be fine but I don't see how they could unless the system ends up like a bunch of Legos that individual people use to build their own system.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:39AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
By the same token, I don't think there will be much way of -avoiding- teamwork if there is more than 1 player, either.
You've never played a hardcore Multi-House drow game.
It's like reaity TV with blades and magic.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:41AM
#6
|
|
|
You've never played a hardcore Multi-House drow game.
It's like reaity TV with blades and magic.
LOL. I said 'much', not 'physically impossible' 
Yah I remember the Drow games from when Menzo first dropped. Fun stuff...the first time, at least. I did burn on it pretty quickly though. I'm a goodie two-shoes through and through.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:47AM
#7
|
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek
Date Joined:
May 31, 2003
|
We used to have a fantastic drow game going on in 1st edition.
Well we blending a little 2nd edition into our 1st edition game. I had a drow bladesinger who's house knew the secrets of "Bladesinging" which caused the other drow houses to be very nervous of us.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 3:47AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
You've never played a hardcore Multi-House drow game.
It's like reaity TV with blades and magic.
I do like the sound of that :D
Back on topic: I'm not sure to get what the OP complain is about. If it is about having prescribed 'roles' for each class, it's already clear DDN won't go in that direction.
Still there will be areas of expertise where some characters be better than others, as it's always been the case in D&D. Hopefully it won't be possible to build a uber-character which excels at everything and is completely self-sufficient. That should be in the interest of everyone, I reckon.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 4:24AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Well, it is a role-playing game, so the idea that characters should be segregated into distinct roles where they all rely on each other for success would seem to be part of the premise, right?
What is this I don't even...
In perfect honesty, even though it spawned an entire medium full of games where the definition of "role" is much more clearly that of an actor in a play, I cannot say with conviction that this is not the origin of the term. Significant ambiguity exists here. In either case, it is not something to be discarded lightly, if this is to be the edition which "feel like" traditional D&D.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Aug 04, 2012 - 4:34AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
Back on topic: I'm not sure to get what the OP complain is about. If it is about having prescribed 'roles' for each class, it's already clear DDN won't go in that direction.
Still there will be areas of expertise where some characters be better than others, as it's always been the case in D&D. Hopefully it won't be possible to build a uber-character which excels at everything and is completely self-sufficient. That should be in the interest of everyone, I reckon.
From my perspective, D&D always had roles which were further enforced via rules and class features. Fighters and Paladins got heavy armor proficiency and thus, in most situations, would be the up-front "fighter-y" guys. Rogues had Sneak Attack which is an attribute to deal lots of damage (often more so than the Fighter) under special circumstances. The cleric's job is to heal and be supportive in their combative role AND possibly spend spells buffing his allies. Wizards were often the "wild card" due to the HUGE list of spells that could virually cover any situation, thus providing a possible "striker" role, a "buffer/supportive" role, a quick "Defender" role, or just use spells to control the battlefield and bad-guys alike. All 4E did was define them a bit more, giving them awesome tools to provide their most primary function of a particular class.
Now, just because "roles" were more clearly defined in 4E DOES NOT MEAN that it's something that has to be adhered to. Just like in other editions, you can have a party of Fighters or Wizards or a mix of Bards, Druids, and Rangers or ALL martial character or all arcane characters. The idea behind published adventures™ was to have a balanced party of leader, defender, strike, controller, and one other and base the adventure with that premise. Can you still have un-balanced parties consisting of 5 strikers or 5 defenders or 3 leaders and a controller? Yes, you can and yes they work.
So for me, I hope D&D:Next promotes teamwork and cooperative play. I hope that if I have some synergy with a few other PCs (like all being of the same faith/church) then that translates to a more coheisive unit that gets bonuses and whatnot. I've never (nor ever will, I suppose) understand the idea behind the mindset of the individual in a supposedly group/party-based game. If anything, playing a game in which I only care about what I do and how I specifically play without thinking of at least the other players feels far more like a video game in Solo mode than a team-oriented group with like minded goals all working together.
|
|
|
