| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Thelonius
Senior Scribe
Spain
730 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 12:52:26
|
Well I guess it depends, although there is usually a competition against the DM the players usually cooperate, though sometimes there can be organized competitive adventures, with two groups working separately for the same objective, or even against each other and the DM at the same time, you need some players for that of course  |
"If you are to truly understand, then you will need the contrast, not adherence to a single ideal." - Kreia
"I THINK I JUST HAD ANOTHER NEAR-RINCEWIND EXPERIENCE"- Discworld's Death frustrated after Rincewind scapes his grasp... again.
"I am death, come for thee" - Nimbul, from Baldur's Gate I just before being badly spanked
Sapientia sola libertas est |
 |
|
|
Mumadar Ibn Huzal
Master of Realmslore
1338 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 13:38:35
|
Overall cooperative, including the DM. The competitiveness sometimes seen seems to be more on who has the coolest character rather than PvP type competition and IMO is of little to no relevance for a Role Playing Game.
I would disagree to term the relationship between players and DM as competitive, though the DM plays the part of the players' opponents, he/she also portrays the allies of the players and works with them to their common goal... |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jan 2012 : 14:01:36
|
Most likely games are cooperative in nature, having the sum of the party work to a collective goal. However, this can break down to "competitive" nature when one or two of the PCs over-shadow classes in their role. For exmaple by 7th, 8th level Wizards more likley have ways that bypass traps and locked doors (Knock, Find Traps) and scouting (invisibility, greater) which removes the need for a rogue. Summon Spells from multiple caster (Wizard, Druid, and Cleric) remove the heavy need for melee-combatant PCs (like Fighters) with little more than a magical item (Wand of summon X) or the normal allotment of spells given. Then take into account how potent spells can be (even ones right from the PHB) and it's hard for non-spellcasting classes to feel relevant in mid- to high-level games.
Add to the fact that DM's often level up monters using PC rules, giving them feats and spells for PCs......and well smart DMs can make PC-lives a living hell.
This is why I've always felt balance is really useful to the overall game mechanics. Classes should do something specific REALLY well, but when that something is easily obtained by another class though little development via spells or class features, it makes my decision to contribue often futile.
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 00:31:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
Which actually is it? Because from my understanding D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game, but all the talk I see on forums is indicating that a big group of players has a more-or-less competitive mindset.
Competitive for what? Phatt Lewtz?
In MORPGs I see this a lot - people get "Ninja'd" (and if you play them, and do Instances, you know what I mean). In those games a good guild takes the place of the adventuring party, and you can avoid most of the hassles.
If you are talking about competing for 'over-all coolness', then thats just a part of the game. Have you ever been cornered by someone who wants to tell you about his character FOR HOURS? Yeaaaaaah.... THAT guy. We all know him. 
So yeah, some people keep a tally of 'kewl points', while others like to walk around like magical dept. stores. Me? I compete with others by roleplaying - I want the spotlight. 
So its both competitive and cooperative; simple human nature - in an adverse situation you will join forces to better survive (and beat-out similar groups doing likewise). Its the 'pack mentality'- those 'not in your pack' are the enemy, and must die.
On the other hand, I have always wanted to run two different groups in one adventure. Create a Dungeon with two openings (on opposite sides of a mountain range), and then start each group from a different end. Have the players meet on different nights, until they get close to each other. The final (solo) session should end with "you look across the chamber and see a group of people similar to yourselves" (adventurers).
Then the following week you hold the session on a single night, and watch the fun begin. 
I've only been in a position to do this once, and couldn't work out all the RW logistics. Hard enough to just get all of one group together on the same night all the time.
But it would work at a convention.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Jan 2012 00:35:13 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7972 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 01:12:42
|
Manly powergaming competition is a natural expression for nerds, it demonstrates alpha dominance through masterful analysis and application of the game rules.
I think DM-vs-players is more of a coopetive effort; although each assumes an adversarial position, they still work together for mutual benefit in achieving play goals. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 02:23:35
|
Most characters become cooperative out of necessity and in order to survive in a competitive world, well at least the ones that are still alive. And by competitive, I mean it from a "what's on the menu tonight" monster perspective. That said, there's nothing wrong with a little healthy character competition as long as it doesn't tear the group apart or cause fatalities.
|
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 06:27:30
|
Interesting. I see alot of *ACTUAL* Competitive. The players never sit down and build a group to cooperate, so the result is characters of varying moralities and goals, with a handful of reasons to cooperate.
Often the players are allies, with the knowledge that they may end up enemies later. It's not uncommon to have PVP to the death once every 6 months to a year. Sometimes the party collapses into a 5-way free for all (though thats really uncommon). |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
495 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 09:54:45
|
Cooperative, mainly because my players know that if they don't cooperate, they will likely not survive most encounters. In my Pathfinder campaign, the alignments are all over the spectrum, but as the character classes are almost all 'neutral' (barbarian, fighter, rogue, witch, plus an NPC wizard), there really isn't much in the way of conflict, and what is there is entirely roleplay.
Similarly, if I am a player (whether tabletop or PbeM), I make sure I clear all my character concepts and final numbers with the DM to make sure the character both 'fits', and meets their approval. I have seen some really weird characters cross both my player and DM tables in my day, and I try to avoid being a pain in either case.
As a final note, I will deliberately kill a PC...but only if (A) the player intentionally does something to tick me off, or (B) the character does something that he (and the player) knows is liable to get him killed. |
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 15:13:14
|
Earlier versions definitely favoured co-operative play. The wizard needed protecting by the fighter. The rogue was ideal for springing traps. The cleric cured the party's wounds. The party needed the wizard's spells.
Later versions have seen the classes become more homogenised. With healing surges, abilities that are spell-like in all but name and magic casters whose spells are the equivalent of a fighter's sword. A consequence of the obvious influence of the computer game.
Perhaps later editions favour competitive play. Please note this isn't an attack on later versions. I'm just think this is a question that might not have been asked in the days of 2nd Edn |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 16:43:36
|
There's nothing wrong with competitiveness (nor cooperation) per se. It's the people's attitude that sometimes colors it red. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 17:13:19
|
In the old days, it could be competitive as well. I recall a long-ago play session where a fighter in AD&D turned on the rest of the party, slaughtering two other PCs before the rest brought him down. That player was subsequently dis-invited from our group. And oddly, he was shocked that we responded as we did.
It's a matter of preference and expectation. Today, because of console shooter games, there's more of an expectation for PvP. But I actually hate PvP and never play those games to begin with. For me, it's always been about having fun in cooperative play. If PvP is more your style, there are other groups out there for you, but I'm not going to "adapt" for someone who wants to kill you, take your stuff, and teabag your corpse. Even if I win when attacked, it's not fun for me.
There are enough monsters in the world at large, I don't need to invite them into my group where they can stab me in the back.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 29 Jan 2012 17:15:28 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 17:22:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
If PvP is more your style, there are other groups out there for you, but I'm not going to "adapt" for someone who wants to kill you, take your stuff, and teabag your corpse. Even if I win when attacked, it's not fun for me.
There are enough monsters in the world at large, I don't need to invite them into my group where they can stab me in the back.
 luckily I wasn't drinking anything. But I agree, PvP in D&D just doesn't mesh well for me or my group. We had a guy much like the person you described Therise. He totally screwed up an adventure hook the PCs were suppoed to investigate in Melvaunt. The bartender was a Slaver and instead of following him, one player got there first and started a huge brawl in the bar that sent the bartender running and then said PC ended up not only fighting the other players but cheated when he was taking well over 30+ damage (we were 4th level, though he was a Fighter) but didn't fall. We told him we were converting to 4E (which we did) and he "opted" out of the group, Muhahahahahah!!! |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 18:10:00
|
Just a clarification: By competitive I don't mean PvP. I mean the attitude when a player wants everyone in the group to be equally optimized or have classes with equal potential (same or close "tier"), because otherwise the weaker player will be sad for being useless in play or will get overshadowed by the better player or the better players will whine because the weaker player doesn't contribute, etc.
Yes. If everyone in the group would contribute equally, have the same power, the same amount of screen time, it would be great. But world isn't perfect.
That's why I asked this question - "Cooperative or Competitive?" - because D&D is supposed to be cooperative and people apparently forgot or don't even know it.
And just so you know - I'm not bashing on those that like the competitive type of play. It just irks me how people treat balance in the game as The One And Only Way. |
[url=http://expensiveautomobile.com/2009-bmw-3-series-uk-version/]2009 bmw 3 series uk version[/url] [url=http://expensiveautomobile.com/2009-bmw-3-series-touring-uk-version/]2009 bmw 3 series touring uk version[/url] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 18:45:45
|
| Imp, I think you're referring to what most of us would call "elitism" (i.e. you must be optimal in level, equipment, even have perfect technique). When I hear "competitive", I automatically think PvP. Elitism is also bad IMO, it's just another way of excluding people based on a subjective metric while making it seem objective. That's just crummy, and it happens most frequently in MMOs... if you dont have a gearscore of XYZ, then you just want us to carry you. It's wretched, really. |
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 18:58:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sylrae
Interesting. I see alot of *ACTUAL* Competitive. The players never sit down and build a group to cooperate, so the result is characters of varying moralities and goals, with a handful of reasons to cooperate.
Often the players are allies, with the knowledge that they may end up enemies later. It's not uncommon to have PVP to the death once every 6 months to a year. Sometimes the party collapses into a 5-way free for all (though thats really uncommon).
You must have gamed with my brother-in-laws friends.
I hated 'guest' DMing for them... what a bunch of spoiled brats (mostly my Bro-in-laws fault - he let them get away with murder for years). Almost every session ended in a free-for-all (they REFUSED to split up the treasure!)
I try not to play with people that have that mentality. I am not saying their method of 'having fun' is wrong... its just not for me.
My second oldest son (20) plays Zombies! with his friends, and I have played with them, and thats the way they play that game (every man or himself), which I don't mind so much in that genre (and its not really an RPG... although I always try to turn it into one). Fun game, BTW - good for nights when the DM isn't prepared to run anything (a good DM always has a 'backup plan'). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 19:02:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
Earlier versions definitely favoured co-operative play. The wizard needed protecting by the fighter. The rogue was ideal for springing traps. The cleric cured the party's wounds. The party needed the wizard's spells.
This description pretty much defines all the editions of D&D that I've played from dreaded AD&D to 4E. The wizard always has the lowest AC and HP and needs protecting. The Rogue can use his skills to get in and out of locked areas or search for traps. The cleric heals and doles out bonuses during combat. Wizard's spells are great for a host of solutions. Even if the mechanics change, these fantasy/D&D icons have always been there.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
Later versions have seen the classes become more homogenised. With healing surges, abilities that are spell-like in all but name and magic casters whose spells are the equivalent of a fighter's sword. A consequence of the obvious influence of the computer game.
Perhaps later editions favour competitive play. Please note this isn't an attack on later versions. I'm just think this is a question that might not have been asked in the days of 2nd Edn
Homogenised isn't as profound in 4E as some would like to believe. I say 4E because you specifically use the term Healing Surges, and the line "abilities that are spell-like in all but name" which I can only see being referred to 4E's powers. But really, clerics (and leaders in general) being slightly relieved of the consistant healing was a good thing IMO. When I have to choose between healing a buddy with my whole turn instead of contributing in a more direct way....that's not really fun (to me). Or allowing people the option to pick a lock because no one wants to play a Rogue is better than "hey, we need a trap finder, lock picker, thivery guy. You need to be a rogue because Tom, Nancy, and John already have classes and they don't have that option". Versatility in character choice with the ability to contribue in some direct, positive way is often considered a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
Just a clarification: By competitive I don't mean PvP. I mean the attitude when a player wants everyone in the group to be equally optimized or have classes with equal potential (same or close "tier"), because otherwise the weaker player will be sad for being useless in play or will get overshadowed by the better player or the better players will whine because the weaker player doesn't contribute, etc.
Yes. If everyone in the group would contribute equally, have the same power, the same amount of screen time, it would be great. But world isn't perfect.
That's why I asked this question - "Cooperative or Competitive?" - because D&D is supposed to be cooperative and people apparently forgot or don't even know it.
And just so you know - I'm not bashing on those that like the competitive type of play. It just irks me how people treat balance in the game as The One And Only Way.
Well, I've never felt balance was a bad thing or made players more competitive. In fact, I feel more balance helps sooth any competition felt and adds to cooperation. Everyone (that I play with anyways) likes contributing to the game. Whether it's combat, social interactions, crafting items, whatever I feel each character should be given a fair chance at having fun in these areas. To me, this doesn't mean "Shine the spotlight on one PC at one time" for this creates the feeling of one controller is shared by multiple players. Instead, I like each character doing their "thing" on their turn. Smaller spotlights at more intervals seems to be a better style for us.
From my experience in other editions of the game, social interactions were largely left to people with the best Charisma to do the talking, which sometimes becamse a talk between the DM and one player for the interaction. Or in battle, certain encounters would play to the best strengths of one or maybe two Players and leave everyone else doing their damnedest to contribute but often failing. Take combat that involves undead, a cleric can (and has) ended the encounter with one Turn Undead attempt using "Greater Turning" or the Disciple of the Sun feat. And while many people say "good job, awesome work!", it can just as easily be "Well.....we sat there and watched the cleric play."
But really, no game or edition of D&D is balanced. No matter what, there will be a build, class, feat, or combo that does something better than something else. The trick is to make it so that those kinds of tricks can't be done by classes that aren't designed for those specifically. Healing Wizards, Clerics that are better at fighting than fighters, a simple feat/spell combo that null-and-voids classes that are specifically tailored for that job, etc. While these things might not be considered "broken", it does make other players feel a bit undesired.
|
|
|
|
Kiaransalyn
Senior Scribe
United Kingdom
762 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 19:30:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
In the old days, it could be competitive as well. I recall a long-ago play session where a fighter in AD&D turned on the rest of the party, slaughtering two other PCs before the rest brought him down. That player was subsequently dis-invited from our group. And oddly, he was shocked that we responded as we did.
That's an interesting example, but I wouldn't term that so much as competitive as wrong. When I read the question what I meant by competitive was trying to get your PC to level first, or to get the most loot or the coolest equipment. Which I'm not sure is a side effect of any edition really. However, the attitude may be more prevalent nowadays due to computer games. I really don't know for sure, but doesn't World of Warcraft have 100's of levels? |
Death is Life
Love is Hate
Revenge is Forgiveness
Ken: You from the States?
Jimmy: Yeah. But don't hold it against me.
Ken: I'll try not to... Just try not to say anything too loud or crass. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 21:03:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
In the old days, it could be competitive as well. I recall a long-ago play session where a fighter in AD&D turned on the rest of the party, slaughtering two other PCs before the rest brought him down. That player was subsequently dis-invited from our group. And oddly, he was shocked that we responded as we did.
That's an interesting example, but I wouldn't term that so much as competitive as wrong. When I read the question what I meant by competitive was trying to get your PC to level first, or to get the most loot or the coolest equipment. Which I'm not sure is a side effect of any edition really. However, the attitude may be more prevalent nowadays due to computer games. I really don't know for sure, but doesn't World of Warcraft have 100's of levels?
The moment loot is divided unfairly, or where players try to out-do or swindle their way to advantage, that starts turning into PvP.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Sylrae
Learned Scribe
Canada
313 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jan 2012 : 21:53:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You must have gamed with my brother-in-laws friends.
I hated 'guest' DMing for them... what a bunch of spoiled brats (mostly my Bro-in-laws fault - he let them get away with murder for years). Almost every session ended in a free-for-all (they REFUSED to split up the treasure!)
I try not to play with people that have that mentality. I am not saying their method of 'having fun' is wrong... its just not for me.
My second oldest son (20) plays Zombies! with his friends, and I have played with them, and thats the way they play that game (every man or himself), which I don't mind so much in that genre (and its not really an RPG... although I always try to turn it into one). Fun game, BTW - good for nights when the DM isn't prepared to run anything (a good DM always has a 'backup plan').
Hmm. Kindof like that yeah.
Its more like an uneasy truce. They have some shared goals, but they also have conflicting goals. Sometimes that turns into the druid killing the rogue. Or whatever.
They never have a problem dividing the loot though. They give exactly equivalent shares. If you want an item found in the dungeon, it comes out of your share of the total take, and they get everything appraised to see what it would sell for.
The downside to this is if you buy consumeables or get robbed, you'll never get your share back up that way. Likewise if you die. The rest of the group will not absorb any of that cost.
If you didnt have the money for resurrection, if you're lucky, one of the other PCs foots the bill and youre now on the hook for however much it cost, and you will adventure with no loot until you pay it back.
I've even seen players barter "I'll pay for the resurrection, but you owe me cost+20%." And if you refuse to pay it back? there's a good chance someone will put you in the ground.
They have a sort of "rules" but the rules have no wiggle room for compassion. "Equal work for equal reward"; sort of deal. You don't show up one week, you dont get that week's share of treasure.
If a player tries to take more than his share? the party treats him the way they treat any band of orc raiders who get in their way. Gods help him.
I think I mostly play with heartless mercenaries who save the princess only because the price is right. lol.
They dont have a problem with PvP when provoked.
But at least they're fair. |
Sylrae's Forgotten Realms Fan-Lore Index, with public commenting access to make for easier improvement (WIP) |
Edited by - Sylrae on 29 Jan 2012 21:56:17 |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2012 : 16:30:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
That's just crummy, and it happens most frequently in MMOs... if you dont have a gearscore of XYZ, then you just want us to carry you. It's wretched, really.
It is. I think carrying others is one of the greatest things you can do for others in an MMO or in D&D, but then, I'm in a small, far right minority regarding that. You know, actually helping people out with content they can't overcome alone, not viewing that as some kind of inconvenience. That's one of the major problems with MMOs today: Me, Myself Only, and oh no, you might lose a little gold on wipes. The horror! 
Kia: 85 levels and counting, soon to be 90.
I've only had one instance of "PvP" in D&D, and it was something the player decided on after being coerced by a suave NPC to betray his friends, telling the dwarf barbarian that his friends didn't really care about him and treated him poorly. The other characters had a real problem with some of the overly aggressive tactics this dwarf would employ (not the player!), so he decided to defect right in the middle of an adventure, basically, switch sides in the middle of a fight. We all thought it was funny. The PCs ended up winning the day, killing the dwarf and the major NPC and the dwarf player was fine with what transpired seeing how he chose that to happen. There were no hard feelings or vitriol of any kind afterwards. The dwarf player pulled me aside before the encounter and told me he wanted to defect, and that he accepted that his dwarf will probably die. It wasn't a big deal really. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D - Cooperative or Competitive?
