Can we build the math from the ground up? (And does Vancian help or hurt that?)

[johnbragg]

But we're transitioning to a culture where players are playing their characters, rather than a group of friends hanging out. Part of this is because technology is making people feel more emotionally distant, since you don't need to physically hang out with people as the only means of spending time anymore.

This is so true that it depresses me. The meme generation needs it to be all about them.

We're talking about tabletop RPGs. So you'd better be talking about "playing your character", or TTRPGs are over. If you just want to hang out with your buds (in-person or virtually) and kill some doods, there is a plethora of shoot-em-up games that lets you do that much more effectively than TTRPGs.

[Kyutaru]

We're talking about tabletop RPGs. So you'd better be talking about "playing your character", or TTRPGs are over. If you just want to hang out with your buds (in-person or virtually) and kill some doods, there is a plethora of shoot-em-up games that lets you do that much more effectively than TTRPGs.

Nay, the sentiment we were sharing is the concept of the team-based effort. In an MMORPG for example, success is not singularly focused. The tank needs to tank, the healer needs to heal, the DPS needs to kill. Without all three doing their jobs the entire dungeon is hopeless. Modern RPG play is more like everyone is their own island and merely working alongside the nearest three humanoids, which some MMOs have started to do (allowing certain characters to even solo dungeons). The shift is off the teamwork and onto personal empowerment. No longer might you do what's best for the group but what's best for yourself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nay, the sentiment we were sharing is the concept of the team-based effort. In an MMORPG for example, success is not singularly focused. The tank needs to tank, the healer needs to heal, the DPS needs to kill. Without all three doing their jobs the entire dungeon is hopeless. Modern RPG play is more like everyone is their own island and merely working alongside the nearest three humanoids, which some MMOs have started to do (allowing certain characters to even solo dungeons). The shift is off the teamwork and onto personal empowerment. No longer might you do what's best for the group but what's best for yourself.

I was reading the 5e D&D style-guide (written for adventure and fiction writers). One thing it stressed was that the core of D&D is the team. That it's not a focus on a hero, working alone. Or even a protagonist with a group of followers. The core of D&D (according to WotC) is that a small group, working together, can do things that no individual can.

That idea has come to be the core of what I try to do and encourage. The basic unit of D&D is the party. Not the character, no more than the proton is the basic unit of matter. Atoms are, which are made of smaller units. The test of a good character is what it brings to the party. And challenges should be designed around parties, not around individuals. My strong belief is that challenges that can be "won" by a single action or even a single character aren't appropriate challenges. They can exist, but only as speed-bumps that aren't really important. All the important stuff, the stuff designed to challenge the party and push the narrative onward, should be designed around requiring at least a significant subset of the party to work together. And characters should[0] be designed to be able to participate (not solve alone) in most of the challenges.

[0] Yes, I know specialization is optimal. But that's only in the context of single-player challenges. Once the challenges start requiring the whole team to do different things, you can specialize (to some degree) and still contribute. Or a little bit of flexibility and generalization won't hurt either. So things like proficiency and expertise can be used to cover weaknesses, not raise strengths to absurd and useless levels.

[Man_Over_Game]

We're talking about tabletop RPGs. So you'd better be talking about "playing your character", or TTRPGs are over.

I was reading the 5e D&D style-guide (written for adventure and fiction writers). One thing it stressed was that the core of D&D is the team. That it's not a focus on a hero, working alone. Or even a protagonist with a group of followers. The core of D&D (according to WotC) is that a small group, working together, can do things that no individual can.

Nay, the sentiment we were sharing is the concept of the team-based effort. In an MMORPG for example, success is not singularly focused. The tank needs to tank, the healer needs to heal, the DPS needs to kill. Without all three doing their jobs the entire dungeon is hopeless. Modern RPG play is more like everyone is their own island and merely working alongside the nearest three humanoids, which some MMOs have started to do (allowing certain characters to even solo dungeons). The shift is off the teamwork and onto personal empowerment. No longer might you do what's best for the group but what's best for yourself.

Kyutaru gets at what I mean. I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but players aren't looking for the same metrics of success. It's no longer good enough if the party succeeds, but it's rather about what that player did to help the party succeed. That means allowing the player to do things that he's looking forward to do. The game should be designed around encouraging the players' desires, not creating a rigid system that the players are forced to adapt towards.

That doesn't mean that the Wizard shouldn't rely on the Fighter to do Fighter-specialized things, but I think there needs to be a shift away from "This is something only the Wizard can solve" and instead transition into "This is a solution only the Wizard could come up with".

Any time a Wizard could debuff an enemy into uselessness, so could the Fighter.
Any time the Fighter could take a hit, so could the Wizard.

There should be varying levels of efficiency, to emphasize on specialties, but nothing should be strictly impossible for anyone.

Actually, thinking about it, the Arkham Horror Card Game does this really well, as it plays like a class-based RPG system with powers and features. Guardians (Fighters) gain ways of solving other problems through defeating enemies, while Seekers (Noncombat Rogues) have ways of working around enemies through stacking their attack rolls with card draw and evasive powers, and Mystics (Wizards) utilize cunning resource management to specialize towards whatever problem they're temporarily equipped to deal with. Point is, you can be bad at your specialty and still perform at an expense. Despite each character having a specialty, they're all capable of working solo, adapting, and using each other. Similarly, a problem solved with a Wizard's Teleport should also be solved with a Fighter's Physical Superiority (or something), even if one is more expensive than another.


Players will always specialize, and they'll rely on each others' specializations to cover each others' weaknesses, we just need to change the sentence of "You are useless when you are out of your element" to have the word "useless" be replaced with "inefficient", as those who are in their element will already take charge. Having options for when you're at your worst makes it a harder game, rather than less of one.

But, truth be told, that's pretty friggin' hard to figure out, which is why I think it makes for an excellent starting place:
How can a Fighter solve a Wizard problem, and how can a Wizard solve a Fighter problem, and how do you make both those situations equally painful?