PDA

View Full Version : There is no "I" in "Party"



nlitherl
2013-10-13, 01:06 PM
The first reader-requested entry at the gaming blog Improved Initiative, today I talk about the sorts of people we need to watch out for when it comes time to decide the combat order. A party is meant to be a cohesive unit, a team that can fight to best advantage to win the day. A group of individual heroes though... they'll fall like a heap of dried leaves. Also included, tips, tricks, and strategies for bringing a party together that both players and storytellers can use.

Get it all here! (http://taking10.blogspot.com/2013/10/there-is-no-i-in-party.html)

Amaril
2013-10-13, 06:33 PM
Actually, as in the case of "team", there is in fact an "I" in "party". Unsurprisingly, it still hides in the a-hole :smalltongue:

...I'll show myself out.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-13, 06:42 PM
*-**I find out that when I add the I in Team, I get Tim, which happens to be me.**

I did once have a character that I was DMing be a Marshall/Rogue who would always win Init with a +12 at level 1 (+4 Imp Init, +4 Cha, +4 Dex), and then max sneak attack damage. Not my character but a player's while I was DMing. I actually believe his name was 'instagib' and went into dread commando and other massive damage accounts.

Other than that Wizards with a Marshal ally with the Motivate Dex and Improved Initiative (+8) can really lay waste to most mobs, especially if they get 'marshal/rogue' to scout out and give a surprise round... yeah marshal and a wizard are dumb.

DigoDragon
2013-10-14, 07:37 AM
Teamwork varies by group, but I do agree that better teamwork equates to a higher probability of success. The best I could figure on encouraging PCs to work together is offer Exp bonuses.

Big Fau
2013-10-14, 07:45 AM
My reply?


"Well, there's no 'U' either.So if you're not on the team, and I'm not on the team, then no one's on the goddammed team! The team sucks."

Character limit...

Tengu_temp
2013-10-14, 07:52 AM
A character who's overly reliant on his role in the party and can't do anything on his own is just as bad as one who wouldn't recognize teamwork even if it kicked him in the ass.

True heroes know how to work both in a group and alone.

Vulnudaemon
2013-10-14, 07:55 AM
Actually, phonetically speaking there is indeed an "I" in party /pa:ti/. I'd rather say there is no "me" in "party". :smalltongue: Seriously speaking, it's better to work as a team. Ex.: A wizard may cast a fireball and do some damage on one turn or he can cast enlarge person on the fighter armed with the greatsword, improving the damage the party do to the enemies during more turns.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-14, 09:23 AM
A character who's overly reliant on his role in the party and can't do anything on his own is just as bad as one who wouldn't recognize teamwork even if it kicked him in the ass.

True heroes know how to work both in a group and alone.
Most definitely this. Plus--it's an adventuring party, not a Special Ops team. :smallwink: There will always be squabbling and party friction.

nlitherl
2013-10-14, 01:08 PM
Unless your party IS a spec. ops team. Good times to be had with that particular hook, if you really want players to work together.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-10-14, 01:40 PM
Unless your party IS a spec. ops team. Good times to be had with that particular hook, if you really want players to work together.
This is true, and that's a totally cool way to play it. I speculate that older versions of D&D saw a lot of this, given the lethality.

Emmerask
2013-10-14, 02:21 PM
Well I agree in so far that there must be something that glues the group together, it doesnt matter if either they are friends or a common enemy/situation. If that glue is not there the games feel extremely arbitrary if the only reason is metagaming.

However there can very well be interests of single characters which he/she can follow.