Quote from: Benoist;368581What if the game system being used, and thus the tools given to the DM to provide entertainment at the game table, assume that there is a perfect synergy and willingness of cooperation between the player characters, though?

Are you asking what happens if everyone wants to be a team player and someone builds a substandard character?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;368609Are you asking what happens if everyone wants to be a team player and someone builds a substandard character?

The two issues seem separate to be. One could built an optimized for combat character and still refuse to work well in the team of PCs or one could have a character not optimised for combat but who does the teamwork think great.

Quote from: Seanchai;368609Are you asking what happens if everyone wants to be a team player and someone builds a substandard character?

Seanchai

Nope. What I'm asking is "What if the game system being used, and thus the tools given to the DM to provide entertainment at the game table, assume that there is a perfect synergy and willingness of cooperation between the player characters, though?"

Do you think the game system, the way it was designed, its assumptions, and the tools it provides to support these assumptions, have no effect at all on the way people play said game?

Isn't it possible that people are less likely to be satisfied with the game if they are not following its assumptions, especially if said assumptions include particular role playing makeups? Like a synergy between mandatory character types and cooperation between characters?

Quote from: jeff37923;368583And what if you have no idea who these people at your table are going to be, like at a convention or RPGA event? Do you then not play?

A convention is to roleplaying what McDonalds is to food.
So in that context you sit down smile at everyone and play the team guy because that is what is required. You can roleplay in a group of course you can lots of people are really good at team work and if the GM has given you a decent set up there should be no conflict between character and group. Does that mean I am always going to be the team guy when I play a long running game with my mates ....

But again for me I will always play the character, even at a con. I played a CoC game at a con once and my character was a 55 year old female New York Socialite. So when our train broke down I insisted that the handsome soldier guy carry all of my luggage with us to the nearest town. I mean that was my luggage those bags are Gucci! Then when we were exploring the now desserted town I stumbled across a shotgun and some cartridges. I left them where they were. You could tell the GM was a bit annoyed because he actually made me make an idea roll to remind me that I might want to take it. I was a 55 year old New York Socialite.... in a deserted town in upstate New York. There were no people and a gun is oily and I have absolutely no knowledge of how it works or how to use it why would I just pick that up?
So there you have the scenario designer building a character that is interesting to play and well thought out, but the GM of my instance of it just going to a default 'find monsters and kill them' game style.

But I have a murder mystery solution to write for the unveiling in 2 hours and I still haven't decided how to give enough clues about the whore being a federal agent so that it makes sense when it happens but is still a suprise. So I will admit that I am a jerk and that D&D characters should all be professional adventurering , hardarse motherfucks willing to do whatever the team decides and with my attitude I shouldn't be allowed to play games.

Quote from: RandallS;368616The two issues seem separate to be. One could built an optimized for combat character and still refuse to work well in the team of PCs or one could have a character not optimised for combat but who does the teamwork think great.

I agree.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;368629Do you think the game system, the way it was designed, its assumptions, and the tools it provides to support these assumptions, have no effect at all on the way people play said game?

I'm sure the vast majority of RPGs assume that the PCs will be working together as a team. There are a few that don't - Paranoia and Amber come to mind - but they're outliers.

If what you're trying to ask in a roundabout way is if 4e assumes the players will be working together and has mechanics to that effect, yes.

If you don't like that, don't use 4e or those mechanics.

Quote from: Benoist;368629Isn't it possible that people are less likely to be satisfied with the game if they are not following its assumptions, especially if said assumptions include particular role playing makeups? Like a synergy between mandatory character types and cooperation between characters?

Obviously, I can't know that. However, I'd guess people enjoy fucking with things and bucking trends.

Seanchai

Quote from: jibbajibba;368653A convention is to roleplaying what McDonalds is to food.
So in that context you sit down smile at everyone and play the team guy because that is what is required. You can roleplay in a group of course you can lots of people are really good at team work and if the GM has given you a decent set up there should be no conflict between character and group. Does that mean I am always going to be the team guy when I play a long running game with my mates ....

But again for me I will always play the character, even at a con. I played a CoC game at a con once and my character was a 55 year old female New York Socialite. So when our train broke down I insisted that the handsome soldier guy carry all of my luggage with us to the nearest town. I mean that was my luggage those bags are Gucci! Then when we were exploring the now desserted town I stumbled across a shotgun and some cartridges. I left them where they were. You could tell the GM was a bit annoyed because he actually made me make an idea roll to remind me that I might want to take it. I was a 55 year old New York Socialite.... in a deserted town in upstate New York. There were no people and a gun is oily and I have absolutely no knowledge of how it works or how to use it why would I just pick that up?
So there you have the scenario designer building a character that is interesting to play and well thought out, but the GM of my instance of it just going to a default 'find monsters and kill them' game style.

But I have a murder mystery solution to write for the unveiling in 2 hours and I still haven't decided how to give enough clues about the whore being a federal agent so that it makes sense when it happens but is still a suprise. So I will admit that I am a jerk and that D&D characters should all be professional adventurering , hardarse motherfucks willing to do whatever the team decides and with my attitude I shouldn't be allowed to play games.

Way to find an extreme exception and present it as the norm. CoC is not your run-of-the-mill long running campaign supporting game, and a 55yo NY socialite is hardly the standard for RPG adventuring character. For what it's worth, I agree 100% with the way you role-played the character, but it's an extreme example of the exception, rather than the rule.

Quote from: Sigmund;368693Way to find an extreme exception and present it as the norm. CoC is not your run-of-the-mill long running campaign supporting game, and a 55yo NY socialite is hardly the standard for RPG adventuring character. For what it's worth, I agree 100% with the way you role-played the character, but it's an extreme example of the exception, rather than the rule.

While you have a point, I think we get very uncomfortable when we start talking about "the norm" and is "standard" for an RPG characters.  PLaying D&D as though it were a MMO may be very popular and widespread but if we start calling in the norm we hamstring the hobby.

Roleplaying is what we make of it.

Quote from: Soylent Green;368701While you have a point, I think we get very uncomfortable when we start talking about "the norm" and is "standard" for an RPG characters.  PLaying D&D as though it were a MMO may be very popular and widespread but if we start calling in the norm we hamstring the hobby.

Roleplaying is what we make of it.

True, and nailing down the "norm" might not be very easy or precise, but I still feel very comfortable pointing out that the "norm" (or anywhere near the "norm") is not going to be a 55 year old socialite from New York even in a game of CoC, let alone DnD (of any edition), Shadowrun, Amber, Vampire, Traveller, or any number of other games folks talk about playing around here. I might grant it in Maid, but even then I'd be skeptical.