To share or not to share?

[Redjack_rose]

alexd1976 wrote:

So any caster that is foolish enough to take Haste as a spell they can cast is obligated to cast it on request, else they are called selfish?

Yes?

On request? No.

When it is significantly beneficial to others? Yes

[alexd1976]

Redjack_rose wrote:

alexd1976 wrote:

So any caster that is foolish enough to take Haste as a spell they can cast is obligated to cast it on request, else they are called selfish?

Yes?

On request? No.

When it is significantly beneficial to others? Yes

So... yes.

[Redjack_rose]

That is either you projecting, or simply ignoring my argument.

Haste, while beneficial, is less effective than a fireball if;

The fight is only expected to take a few rounds.
There are many targets to be fireball'ed.
The enemy is vulnerable to fire or resistant against physical damage [ie. High DR/AC].
There are only a couple targets that really benefit from haste.
Etc...

It will not always be necessary, or even optimal to cast haste.

[alexd1976]

Redjack_rose wrote:

That is either you projecting, or simply ignoring my argument.

Haste, while beneficial, is less effective than a fireball if;

The fight is only expected to take a few rounds.
There are many targets to be fireball'ed.
The enemy is vulnerable to fire or resistant against physical damage [ie. High DR/AC].
There are only a couple targets that really benefit from haste.
Etc...

It will not always be necessary, or even optimal to cast haste.

So if the group benefits from haste, the caster is a jerk if he doesn't cast it?

I've always thought that players control their characters, didn't realize it was a committee decision.

[Redjack_rose]

O.o um... you can choose not to cast haste if you are able to cast it. No one forces you. One of the side effects is you're being selfish and not a team player.

Just like if you really want, your character can run around burning down orphanages. No one can stop you from trying, you'll just be a murdering psychopath.

If you are not okay with being labeled a jerk or a psychopath, don't act like one.

[alexd1976]

Redjack_rose wrote:

O.o um... you can choose not to cast haste if you are able to cast it. No one forces you. One of the side effects is you're being selfish and not a team player.

Just like if you really want, your character can run around burning down orphanages. No one can stop you from trying, you'll just be a murdering psychopath.

If you are not okay with being labeled a jerk or a psychopath, don't act like one.

So... if you have Haste, you either cast it or are a jerk.

Got it.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

The only obligation I see is to not make a character that actively makes things worse for everyone involved. So don't try making an assassin in a group of paladins and expect them to be cool with you being all evil and stuff. Don't try making something that doesn't fit the setting (no drow in Rokugan).

There are definitely some builds that work better with what everyone else has than others. If everyone else in the party is a mundane that makes lots of weapon attack rolls in combat, a bard with Inspire Courage and Haste is going to be more useful than another 2H Fighter.

[alexd1976]

So if a wizard, who finds a spellbook... tear out the page containing the Haste spell.

[Chess Pwn]

Wow, I feel one of the few times Alexd1976 and I are on the same side.
@Alexd1976
Redjack_rose has a very VERY interesting view of this game. From what I understand from what he's said thus far:
If you don't know haste that's fine but you should have a scroll of it and use it when it's most optimal instead of anything else.
If you don't prepare any haste spells but know it that's fine but you should have a scroll of it and use it when it's most optimal instead of anything else.
That if you have a haste prepared, and probably have a scroll of it on hand, and don't cast it if it's the most optimal spell in a combat then you're a super big jerk that nobody should play with.

@Redjack_rose - helpful advice
Look, whenever we bring up the haste example PLEASE assume we're talking about a situation where haste IS the most optimal choice, because we are talking of such a situation.
If needed assume the GM ONLY throws fights where haste is the most optimal option every time.
If you do this then you'll be discussing the same situation we are. Otherwise you'll feel we're missing the point because you say there are times where haste isn't the best. And we know that, but we're not talking about an entire campaign. What we are discussing are those situations where haste is the most optimal spell but a player choosing to cast a different spell instead.

@Redjack_rose
So assuming that haste is the best option for this point.
Haste is a boring spell for a caster. You literally do nothing with it. You just make others better. That's not as flashy as calling down lightning from the sky or summoning a horde of celestial beings. And people will make casters that want to focus on one of those or something similar. Thus they only want to cast haste when they WANT to cast it, maybe that's never, maybe that's after they've summoned for two rounds. But nothing they are doing are actively hurting the party and their actions are aiding in the party winning. Thus they are not a jerk, but somebody playing their character in a way fun for them that works with the parties goals.

[Redjack_rose]

Chess Pwn;

Why would we debate using unrealistic terms? It's easy to ''win'' a debate if you set unrealistic terms. It's like saying guns are bad, but we're only talking about a gun when it's being fired at an innocent mother of five. Thus, only an insane person would disagree guns are bad. [For the record, I do think guns are bad, but that is not a topic for this forum].

1. If the situation is that every fight becomes Haste = Best option either your gm is being bad, or your party is being bad, or your build is just bad. It's no longer an issue of should you cast haste, it's an issue of what's wrong with your group.

2. If you want to define terms, Would it help if I said inconsiderate instead of jerk? Is it like just too strong of a word. People don't want to think of themselves as jerks? Cause I'll admit right now I'm kind of a b!tch, so calling someone a jerk to me is like... calling them rude.

[Redjack_rose]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Yeah, the fighter and the player of said fighter gets a free pass because he CAN'T do anything, because in character creation you chose a class that has no options.

But if you're a caster, you better make sure and do the most optimal thing available to you or else you're an "Immature jerk" that doesn't deserve to play with others. But you have a pass if you don't have the option?

But the fighter needs to watch out too, because if he gets some UMD and has something that would be most optimal, he needs to do it or his player is also now an "Immature jerk" that doesn't deserve to play with others.

See, then you make posts like this and go distort my words. I said things like significantly beneficial, not fully optimal. The difference is I don't expect haste when it's a little bit better than your fireball. I expect a haste when it's a lot better than your fireball.

The fighter does not get a free pass. If he's over in the corner tripping some minion cause it's funny when he could be tripping the boss, I'm gonna get upset with him. If he utterly refuses to take the extra effort to flank with the rogue cause he wants that +2 charge bonus and an extra 1d6 damage on his first hit, I'm going to be upset with him. If he is capable of fishing a dying ally out of the mess of combat for a breath of life and refuses to cause ''his character wants to hit that orc'' he's being inconsiderate and rude.

No one gets a free pass.

[CBDunkerson]

Logically, there is some point at which 'following personal freedom' becomes 'not a team player'. However, there is a huge range between 'letting a team mate die for kicks' and 'not doing everything another team member thinks you should'. Redjack_rose is setting the 'team player' crossover point significantly lower than most and further damaging the acceptance of his arguments with incendiary terms such as "psychopath" and "immature jerk". These 'sub-optimal discussion tactics' are obscuring instances where he makes points that are potentially valid.

Personally, I'd say that so long as you aren't undermining the team (e.g. by 'labeling teammates psychopaths') you are a 'team player'. Maybe not the team MVP, but anyone who isn't tearing down or betraying the team and who provides a net benefit towards getting the job done should be allowed to do their thing.

That said, if the job is in danger of NOT getting done then having a discussion about possible tactics changes is necessary, but still ought to look at multiple options and allow everyone to contribute as they prefer to whatever extent possible.

A team is a collection of individuals. If you don't allow others their individualism then YOU aren't a team player... but the same applies if you think only of yourself and not the group.

[claymade]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Nope, seems perfectly valid to me.

Consider the following template, then:

Once upon a time, there was a ______ who designed a character whose fighting concept was based around ________. However, when fighting in a dungeon, the party happened to find a _________. The party (correctly) pointed out to the _______ that using the _________ instead of his ________ would be significantly better for the party in many situations. However, the ________ liked the theme of using a ________, so even though he _________, he kept on __________, even though it wasn't anywhere close to the mechanically best option.

If you fill in the blanks with:

Once upon a time, there was a [wizard] who designed a character whose fighting concept was based around [throwing fireballs]. However, when fighting in a dungeon, the party happened to find a [spellbook with Haste in it]. The party (correctly) pointed out to the [wizard] that using the [Haste spell] instead of his [Fireball spell] would be significantly better for the party in many situations. However, the [wizard] liked the theme of using a [Fireball spell], so even though he [had the Haste spell], he kept on [casting Fireball], even though it wasn't the mechanically best option.

...that player is an immature jerk? But if you fill in the blanks with:

Once upon a time, there was a [paladin] who designed a character whose fighting concept was based around [fighting with a sickle]. However, when fighting in a dungeon, the party happened to find a [falchion]. The party (correctly) pointed out to the [paladin] that using the [falchion] instead of his [sickle] would be significantly better for the party in many situations. However, the [paladin] liked the theme of using a [sickle], so even though he [had proficiency in falchion], he kept on [using a sickle], even though it wasn't the mechanically best option.

...that's just fine?

Keep in mind that this does not fit your explanation of how "They can't plan ahead of time that they should have gotten a degree in physics or gone to medical school because they'll know one day the group their in will need it." The choice, as you can see, is being made after the party is formed. No foreknowledge required. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever stopping the paladin from swinging a falchion instead of a sickle at that point, other than the same sort of "thematic" aspect that might want to make an Ifrit wizard want to throw around fire instead of buffs, even when buffs are technically the best choice.

The paladin, character and player, in this case is choosing, in-game, not to take the option that most benefits the team for the sake of his concept/roleplay. There's no two ways about it.

For my part? I'd much rather all the players had fun at the table doing things they found cool than play that sort of "Pathfinder Police".

("Dave, I'm really disappointed in your decision to Fireball the BBEG who killed your little sister in the face personally, instead of standing on the sidelines and casting Haste while the rest of the party killed him for you. According to my carefully-calculated spreadsheets, doing that reduced our group's average DPR for that encounter by a whole 52 points! We might have killed him a whole round faster if you hadn't been so selfish! I really hope this trend of playing your character like he has emotions instead of number-crunching calculation doesn't continue. In fact... maybe we don't need you around at all, if you're not going to take the most mathematically optimal solution that's in your capabilities!")

[Claxon]

It seems to me that Redjack_rose is of the opinion that if you don't take the mechanically best option (most efficient option) available for the group and do it at all terms then your being a poop head who's playing wrong and you should feel bad.

And I definitely 100% cannot, and will never agree with it.

Just because something is mechanically a better idea does not mean that a character or player should feel beholden to do that thing, especially if the player establishes "Hey, I'm a blaster wizard not a buffing wizard". The player clearly wants to throw fireballs, not hastes. You don't get to tell him how to play his character anymore than you would want him to tell you how to play your character.

Now, if he starts doing things that are actively harmful to the party, well that's a bit different. Like if the blaster starts lobbing fireballs onto the melee members of the party engaged with the enemy, that's a bit of a problem. But just because he's not doing the mechanically best option doesn't mean he's a doody head.

Now, I'm not saying the wizard should never buff or help the party with their spells, but merely saying that if a player shows up with a blaster wizard, and you keep shouting for haste every combat you have a problem with your expectations. Not everyone is interested in "the mechanically best or most efficient method of play".

[Redjack_rose]

@CBDunkerson

I do tend to come on a little strong. To me ''jerk'' and ''immature'' aren't exactly harsh criticisms. They're still undesirable traits, but they're common traits in out society. I'll try and be less... offensive. Is inconsiderate a better term? [On a side not, the psychopath comment was about someone burning orphanages, nothing more.]

My crossover point is not as low as some are taking it. My point is at a significant benefit, which some are defining as any benefit. In an attempt to clarify again, when I say someone capable of acting a certain way should act a certain way if there is a significant benefit to the group I am referring to the point where there is large difference between one action or the other.

In an example;
A four member, 5th level party is fighting 6 cr 2 enemies. The Wizard could fireball for about 17 [8 with save] damage on average, catching most of them. OR He could cast haste, giving 3 people an extra attack [about 10-12 dmg per hit].

In this case, it is debatable whether the fireball or the haste is better than the fireball. The fireball could kill the enemies outright, and the battle isn't likely to last 2 rounds

In another example;
The same 5th level party is facing a CR 8 Boss. Now the wizard can either fireball for that 17 dmg, or haste the other 3.

In this case, it is more likely Haste is going to be significantly more beneficial. The fight is likely to take 3 or more rounds. If the wizard, decided not to cast haste, that would be inconsiderate.

Grant it, I would jump on his case for that one instance, but over many sessions, especially if I made a suggestion to him with good intention, of him ignoring the request of the party, then yes I would consider them lacking teamwork.

[captain yesterday]

Haste is always the better first option, always.

[Orthos]

The problem with this, I think, comes down to "how far do you take it?"

If the Wizard is a jerk for casting a damage spell instead of Haste on the party, how far up the chain does "making a suboptimal choice" translate into jerkitude?

Is Player A a jerk for playing a Rogue instead of a more mechanically-viable class like Alchemist, Slayer, or Bard?

Is Player B a jerk for using anything but a two-handed weapon with as large a crit range as possible on their Fighter? (Or, again, not taking a more mechanically-superior class like Barbarian or Paladin instead?)

Is Player C a jerk for taking anything but Conjuration spells on their Sorcerer?

And if not... why not? Because clearly making a suboptimal choice in the first case was a jerk move, but if these other examples aren't, where do you draw the line?

Saying "making a suboptimal combat choice is a jerk move" is a really nasty rabbit hole to look down.

[Redjack_rose]

@claymade

I feel like I'm going blue in the face here. Significant Benefit. Flachion is 2d4 vs 1d6, has a better crit range, and is 2 handed [comes with its own advantages/disadvantages]. It isn't significantly better in the long run, especially considering the Paladin may have taken weapon focus, or maybe intends to keep his hand free for something else.

Now you've also introduced another complication. Let's be realistic. Even at 4 combats a day, only one of them is going to warrant a casting of haste. If each combat is about 3 rounds and the one with haste is 5 rounds, the wizard taking 1 round to cast haste is ''stepping away from his concept'' for 1/14th of the combat. You're attempting to equate forcing a weapon on someone for 14 of 14 combat rounds, and pretending it's the same thing.

Finally, while your story is cute. Never have I said one instance [which has a damn good reason] the same as a pattern of instance. If your wizard constantly refuses to spend 1 standard action a day not casting fireball, then I call them ''mean names.''

[Redjack_rose]

Claxon wrote:

Blah.

You obviously haven't read my posts.

[Redjack_rose]

Orthos wrote:

The problem with this, I think, comes down to "how far do you take it?"

Please read everything I've said. I very clearly set forth where I draw the line.

1. Character Build/Creation is the player's prerogative. I have repeatedly stated that I feel players are free to make their own concept.

2. It's not about taking the ''optimal choice'' in combat, it's taking the one with significant benefit. If there isn't much difference between choice a or b [or even if there is a noticeable difference], then go with your concept. If choice b significantly better, than if you are being a team player take option b.

3. As I recently clarified, 1 instance doesn't make someone a jerk. It's a repeated pattern.

[Nicos]

Redjack_rose wrote:

To go into ''but that's what I want to do!'' fine, but don't call yourself a team player and don't be surprised if someone get's mad at you. It's a bit of an immature attitude honestly because you are part of a team all working to be better together.

Getting mad because the wizard prefered to cast fireball instead of haste is the actual true immature behaviour.

[claymade]

Redjack_rose wrote:

I feel like I'm going blue in the face here. Significant Benefit.

From my experience, an tripled crit range alone is a pretty darn significant benefit. And that's just the thing, isn't it? You're putting yourself in the position of judge and jury on what exactly constitutes "significant enough" to tell another player what to do. This is not a hypothetical; I've seen people try to convince other players to drop their existing choice and go for falchion.

Sure, you might say that those falchion people are over the "magic, invisible, Redjack_rose-defined line of significance" past which you're allowed call other players to the carpet for acting suboptimal. But really, all they're doing is just drawing their own version of that line in a somewhat different place from you.

As Orthos said, you're opening up a very nasty rabbit hole... and then protesting that it's okay, because you'd only follow it just as far down as you, personally, think is reasonable in terms of telling other players how to play.

For my part, I prefer to let each player at the table draw that magic, invisible, optimal-behavior line for their own characters inasmuch as is possible, as long as they're not actively harming the party.

Redjack_rose wrote:

Now you've also introduced another complication. Let's be realistic. Even at 4 combats a day, only one of them is going to warrant a casting of haste.

That's an interesting assumption to make. I'd expect that would depend a lot on DM style and/or module design, myself. What if you've got a DM who just prefers low-creature count encounters of various types, and uses them in very large proportion?

[Redjack_rose]

Nicos wrote:

Getting mad because the wizard prefered to cast fireball instead of haste is the actual true immature behaviour.

Would you prefer a more exact word. Upset. Feel inclined to comment on the other player's behavior. Look disfavorable on their actions. Discussed tactics with them and indicated something that would be more beneficial to the team they claim to be part of?

Are you seriously going to argue semantics of mad versus upset or unhappy? Or was that essentially a rubber-glue comment?

[Nicos]

Redjack_rose wrote:

...it's been pointed out several times now there are many situations where haste isn't significantly beneficial over other things the caster could do. On the few occasions it is more useful, it shouldn't be an issue for a caster to use it. They could even ask the party to buy them a scroll so they don't have to use a spell slot.

You don't have the right to decide what is more beneficial for the other players to do, and complaining about their action will be just immature and jerkish behaviour**

** Unless is a very very idiotic action.

[Redjack_rose]

claymade wrote:

Sure, you might say that those falchion people are over the "magic, invisible, Redjack_rose-defined line of significance" past which you're allowed call other players to the carpet for acting suboptimal. But really, all they're doing is just drawing their own version of that line in a somewhat different place from you.

If someone asks for advice [I believe this started in the advice forum] about should they feel obligated to do X, then me answering with my opinion seems par for the course. This is my line, this is where I draw it, and here's why. I think you should adopt it.

As I think I said earlier in this thread, but maybe it was another one; ''I understand there is no objectively best play style, but there are some that are generally better than others.''

claymade wrote:

That's an interesting assumption to make. I'd expect that would depend a lot on DM style and/or module design, myself. What if you've got a DM who just prefers low-creature count encounters of various types, and uses them in very large proportion?

Yes, mileage may vary. I was generalizing from most scenarios in pfs, as well as some of the basic GM guidelines/tips. Much more than 4 combats and the wizard is out of spells any way [unless he's been using wands/non-spell actions... like omg casting haste from a scroll].

[Redjack_rose]

Nicos wrote:

You don't have the right to decide what is more beneficial for the other players to do, and complaining about their action will be just immature and jerkish behaviour**

** Unless is a very very idiotic action.

You're playing on a baseball team, and you notice your team mate often tries to steal a base. Sometimes he succeeds, but often he get's nabbed or get's out of position for the next batter.

Now, assuming you don't come up to him cursing and swearing but explain to him ''Hey, could you stop trying to steal that base? The team gets a lot more benefit if you stay put.''

His answer is ''You have no right to decide what's more beneficial for me to do. I want to have fun and it's more fun to try and steal the base than back up the team.''

Who's the immature one?

[Digitalelf]

Redjack_rose wrote:

His answer is ''You have no right to decide what's more beneficial for me to do. I want to have fun and it's more fun to try and steal the base than back up the team.''

Exactly, it's about a willingness to share resources when, where and especially IF there is a need.

If you're caught in the zombie apocalypse and have 100 rounds of ammo, and your buddy just ran out of his, would you not give him a portion of your ammo, or would you just say something to the effect of "Sux to be you dude!"

[claymade]

Redjack_rose wrote:

If someone asks for advice [I believe this started in the advice forum] about should they feel obligated to do X, then me answering with my opinion seems par for the course. This is my line, this is where I draw it, and here's why. I think you should adopt it.

General Discussion, actually. And the point is that if all you're saying is that if the DPR difference is "significant" players have the green light to tell other players how they ought to be playing, then everyone, even within a given table, will have a different idea of how much "significant" actually means.

If that's as deep as the table-practice-rule goes, you will see the falchion fans try to force the paladin to take it. Because if the only guide is "significance", they absolutely find it so.

Now, I suppose if you wanted to actually define a meaningful line, you could say, I dunno, "I think 'significant' means an X% DPR increase" and make the case for that. If you have that, then I guess you could just apply math to determine whether the Haste spell or the falchion was above or underneath that threshold, and thus determine whether another player would be "justified" in trying to force another player to use either one.

Of course, as mentioned, I (for my own personal part) find the fundamental idea of having a table ethos that gives other players that kind of permission to try and force decisions like that based on DPR calculations to be flat-out TOXIC to the sort of environment I find fun in tabletop gaming.

The freedom to make dumb, in-character tactics is something awesome, and IMHO doesn't happen enough in my games.

Redjack_rose wrote:

You're playing on a baseball team, and you notice your team mate often tries to steal a base. Sometimes he succeeds, but often he get's nabbed or get's out of position for the next batter.

Now, assuming you don't come up to him cursing and swearing but explain to him ''Hey, could you stop trying to steal that base? The team gets a lot more benefit if you stay put.''

His answer is ''You have no right to decide what's more beneficial for me to do. I want to have fun and it's more fun to try and steal the base than back up the team.''

Who's the immature one?

Really, this one example says it all, and about as clearly as could be asked for, how you're portraying playing Pathfinder as analogous to playing baseball.

This whole argument is basically the difference between looking at Pathfinder as a game where the objective is just to "win", and looking at it as a storytelling exercise where the objective is to have cool memories after it's over of the fun things your characters did.

If we're playing Pathfinder-ball, heck yeah I'd be in favor of a player keeping on trying to "steal bases" if that was the sort of method he found fun to contribute to the team. If it was less than optimal, maybe even "significantly" so... so what? He's enjoying himself. I'd concern myself with enjoying the things my character can do, the way I enjoy doing them.

[Jiggy]

Digitalelf wrote:

Redjack_rose wrote:

His answer is ''You have no right to decide what's more beneficial for me to do. I want to have fun and it's more fun to try and steal the base than back up the team.''

Exactly, it's about a willingness to share resources when, where and especially IF there is a need.

If you're caught in the zombie apocalypse and have 100 rounds of ammo, and your buddy just ran out of his, would you not give him a portion of your ammo, or would you just say something to the effect of "Sux to be you dude!"

Depends. Am I an expert marksman and the reason he's out of ammo is that he's been spraying it into the dirt and sky? Maybe his best chance of survival is for me to have all the ammo. I want my buddy to survive, right?

[Orthos]

claymade wrote:

Of course, as mentioned, I (for my own personal part) find the fundamental idea of having a table ethos that gives other players that kind of permission to try and force decisions like that based on DPR calculations to be flat-out TOXIC to the sort of environment I find fun in tabletop gaming.

The freedom to make dumb, in-character tactics is something awesome, and IMHO doesn't happen enough in my games.

...

If we're playing Pathfinder-ball, heck yeah I'd be in favor of a player keeping on trying to "steal bases" if that was the sort of method he found fun to contribute to the team. If it was less than optimal, maybe even "significantly" so... so what? He's enjoying himself. I'd concern myself with enjoying the things my character can do, the way I enjoy doing them.

+1 and then some.

I'm happy to give people advice on how to make their characters more effectively mechanically and tactically... but at the end of the day, if they're doing what makes them happy and it's not hurting the fun of the rest of the group, let 'em have it.

[Claxon]

Redjack_rose wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Blah.

You obviously haven't read my posts.

No I did, you came off rather unfavorably.

[Digitalelf]

Jiggy wrote:

Am I an expert marksman

Okay, lets roll with that - but this time, YOU'RE the one out of ammo, and your buddy has the 100 rounds.

Your buddy is no marksman, but he is a decent shot... Would you not want him to share some of his ammo with you, citing that you have the better aim?? And if both you and he KNOW you are the better shot, would you not at least grumble (if not outright complain) if he did not share some of his remaining ammo with you?

[Jaunt]

Hey guys.

Can we acknowledge that one of these scenarios is a game, and the other is literally life and death?

I mean, I know for the PCs, combat is a matter of life and death too, but if I had a dollar for every time I was in a group that treated Pathfinder combat as seriously as real people would, I wouldn't have enough to offer a penny for your thoughts.

[Digitalelf]

Jaunt wrote:

Hey guys.

Can we acknowledge that one of these scenarios is a game, and the other is literally life and death?

One of the things we as gamers tend to just love to express to non-gamers, is that our games encourage real-life team work, and co-operation with other people... Is that just idle lip service? Or does it actually mean something that can be seen by example (even through our collective imaginations) in how we interact with each other while immersed within our game?

[Claxon]

Digitalelf wrote:

Jaunt wrote:

Hey guys.

Can we acknowledge that one of these scenarios is a game, and the other is literally life and death?

One of the things we as gamers tend to just love to express to non-gamers, is that our games encourage real-life team work, and co-operation with other people... Is that just idle lip service? Or does it actually mean something that can be seen by example in how we interact with each other while immersed within our game?

I've literally never said that to anyone, nor have I heard that said about TTRPG before.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

When I describe Pathfinder/D&D to somebody I tell them it's collaborative story telling with rules where we get to kill dragons (sometimes).

[Orthos]

Pretty much what Claxon said.

[Jaunt]

Digitalelf wrote:

One of the things we as gamers tend to just love to express to non-gamers, is that our games encourage real-life team work, and co-operation with other people... Is that just idle lip service? Or does it actually mean something that can be seen by example (even through our collective imaginations) in how we interact with each other while immersed within our game?

I don't say that either. I play games because they're fun, because they give me an excuse to think, and because they let me pretend to be someone other than an ordinary guy for a little bit. I don't play games because they're a social good, or in order to become a better person, or to save mankind.

I mean, if your games encourage teamwork and stuff, that's cool, but I'm not going to read into my PCs' teamwork or lack thereof as indicative of anything other than how they like to play with imaginary toy soldiers any more than I'd read into it if my PCs all wanted to play morally dark grey vampires in modern day Manhattan.

[Digitalelf]

Claxon wrote:

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Yes, and bread is made from wheat...

But apparently, neither you, Jaunt, nor Othos have been asked the question of "What value does a game like D&D have (especially to a young person)?". Or if you have bee asked that, you've answered with "to have fun" which in the case of the people that have asked that question of me, does not really answer their question, as well, duh, we play games in general to have fun.

But the answer to the question of what value there is to a game like D&D is more than just to have fun; it teaches someone:

1. Reading
2. Reading Comprehension
3. Basic mathematics
4. The ability to interact with other people
5. Etc.

And since the game rules actively encourage team work, that is why I decided to post in this thread in the first place as that is where the conversation has gone...

[Jaunt]

Look guy, I'm talking about Pathfinder as a game. You can use it as a lesson in teamwork, a form of therapy, or a way to keep your arithmetic sharp, or whatever you want, but I think it's fairly obvious that if your starting position is "I play Pathfinder to learn/teach the value of cooperation", then of course your answer to the OP's question is "ALL the teamwork is the right amount of teamwork".

But that's only applicable to groups who share your pedagogical agenda.

[captain yesterday]

One teamwork feat I'm a huge fan of is the one where kineticists can combine their blasts into composite blasts.

[Matthew Downie]

Some of you aren't making enough of a distinction between a player being a jerk, and a character being a jerk.

If a Wizard character has the ability to learn Haste and cast Haste, and Haste would significantly reduce the chances of the party getting killed, but the Wizard decides to carry on casting fireballs anyway, that Wizard is either an idiot with no understanding of tactics, or a psychopath who loves burning people so much he doesn't care if it endangers the lives of himself and his allies.

Whether the player is a jerk for playing such a Wizard is a separate question. Is the Wizard dominating out-of-combat play, and by refusing to buff his martial allies ensuring that they don't get to shine in battle either? Are you playing the sort of game where this kind of sub-optimal play is likely to lead to a TPK? Or will playing him optimally just cause the GM to beef up the opposition?

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

A character's decisions are a player's decisions. Saying "I'm just roleplaying my character, so I can do whatever I want" is no excuse to be an a$@%$*~@ if everyone is not on board with you playing that way.

It all boils down to what degree of cooperation is expected in the group, and sometimes this has to be hashed out OOC so everyone can come to an agreement and avoid problems in play.

[Dragonflyer1243]

Sorry to jump into the conversation a bit late, but here are my thoughts based on the groups I've played with.
So to me, this debate breaks down into two sections, the in-game motivations of your character and your personal motivations as a player.

Realistically looking at the in-game motivations of your character, it is likely that you would be pressured by your group to cast haste in a situation where it's clearly the best option. This is because even though it might be boring for you as a player, in game your character's goal is to survive with as few injuries as possible, and for the group as a whole, anyone who doesn't act towards that end is something of a liability that you may not want to work with(obviously this changes if you're playing an evil group, but this is assuming otherwise). So in character it's likely that you would be under serious pressure to caste haste relatively often, which means that your player motivations are the real deciding factor that might lead to you not doing so.

The way that I see the game is that your entire group is working together to succeed. Yes, you're all trying to play and enjoy your individual characters, but you're playing as a group, and at least with the people that I've played with it's taken for granted that if there's something that you can do to help the group that doesn't cause you a huge inconvenience then you should do it. Seeing as in nearly all situations you have more than one spell slot, meaning that you don't necessarily have to choose between fireball and haste and that even a specialized character can also delve into other options because their preferred strategy doesn't always work, it doesn't seem like too much of a hassle to me to take haste once per day or have a scroll of it when you consider just how helpful it can be.
Obviously I understand that it can feel stale to always caste haste if it's the optimal strategy, but at the same time given how many different situations there can be, haste isn't always the right spell to cast and so there's no reason(at least from my perspective which of course isn't the only way to look at things) that if it's such a good option and if it only takes one round and then allows you to return to blasting while the effects linger, then not doing it most of the time comes off as a bit selfish and makes for poor teamwork.

That's not to say that you should always do what's best for the group, but if you have the chance to do something that's so clearly beneficial to everyone and you choose not to because you personally find it more satisfying to do something else, then it kind of goes against the group-based attitude that has always characterized d&d for me.
Like I said, this is just my opinion based on the groups I've played with, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in here.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post and the replies to it. Guys, let's dial back the grar a bit here.

[Mathmuse]

Jaunt wrote:

Hey guys.

Can we acknowledge that one of these scenarios is a game, and the other is literally life and death?

I mean, I know for the PCs, combat is a matter of life and death too, but if I had a dollar for every time I was in a group that treated Pathfinder combat as seriously as real people would, I wouldn't have enough to offer a penny for your thoughts.

I had assumed that the zombie apocalypse scenario was a game, too, and that the reason Digitalelf offered that scenario is that it is more clear-cut than the wizard casting Haste example. Haste is not always the best spell, so sharing ammunition is a better example.

Part of the problem with mandatory teamwork is that the so-called best option is not always the best. It depends on the party, especially the organic growth of the party members that reflects their role in the party.

I agree strongly with Jiggy's post #23. My Pathfinder character is roleplaying as an actual person on the world Golarion. He is fighting alongside his buddies on a quest, or in a ragtag band of strangers thrown together for survival, or as a townsfolk finding himself and his neighbors defending their homes against invaders, or any number of Pathfinder scenarios. I have no interest in playing an evil jerk, so my character wants to work with his comrades. My very first posting in the Paizo forums asked how I could make my gnome ranger-monk a better team player, because changing party membership had put him into the front line instead of letting him stay back as an archer or skirmish on the edges of melee.

My characters have their own ideas about teamwork. Another poster provided an excellent example already. Thomas, the Tiefling Hero, described a melee cleric, who was the best melee combatant in his party. Yet he said,

Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:

And my favorite: after trying to get it through a guy's head that this cleric typically had the best accuracy and AC at the table and therefore I had better contributions to make than casting cure spells, he finally said "Fine! If you're gonna be stingy with healing, then if I'm ever at a table with you, maybe I'll just have my barbarian get behind you and pull out a shortbow while all the enemies fight YOU in melee! Maybe then you'll stop being so selfish and learn some teamwork!"

Imagine that as an actual encounter. Thomas's cleric is an established party member, and the guy's barbarian has recently joined the party. They are both in round 3 of combat.

BARBARIAN: Cleric! I am hurting! Get your hinny over here and heal me!
CLERIC: Rogue, take my spot. (Cleric takes 5-foot step and stabs the barbarian's foe for 20 damage. The foe drops.)
BARBARIAN: I said heal me, not steal my kill. (Barbarian does not move, even though a low-level wizard cultist stands in the distance throwing acid arrow at them.)
CLERIC: I prevented more damage by killing that warrior than my healing would have cured. (Cleric steps behind previous foe giving flank to the rogue. He misses, but the rogue finishes the foe off.)
BARBARIAN: If you aren't going to do teamwork, then you get to be in melee all by yourself. (Drops his weapon, pulls out his crossbow, and loads it.)
CLERIC: You call that teamwork? (Moves toward wizard, but has to stop 10 feet short)
BARBARIAN: Yeah. (Shoots wizard for 4 damage.)
CLERIC: You are the most sorry excuse for a barbarian I have ever seen and you dare lecture me! With your speed, you could have killed this Lamashtu-worshiping idiot, but instead you play with a crossbow? (Steps up and kills wizard.) Now that combat is over, I have time to heal you with this Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

The wand runs dry before the barbarian is healed.
BARBARIAN: Ha, now you have you use your spells.
ROGUE: No, he doesn't. (Pulls out a new Wand of Cure Light Wounds.) I pick this up the last visit to town.
CLERIC: Now that is teamwork. Barbarian, you get to buy the next one.
BARBARIAN: No way. Healing is your job.
CLERIC: It is only fair. You take so much damage.
BARBARIAN: Running around without armor is my archetype. You clerics are supposed to keep me alive. With teamwork.
ROGUE: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The wizard does not have to cast Haste when his Fireballs are especially good (he studied schools and feats to make them that good). The fighter who knows that his wizard buddy never casts Haste buys Boots of Speed. That, too, is teamwork.

[Terquem]

You know, I've always been a bit muddled by the way things have changed right in front of my eyes. See, my memories never have these incidents where a player in the game does something that is not helpful to the party (if given the opportunity to do something that would be, after all), because I always played with the same group of people and we learned the game, and the game as it is played, together, from level one, when we really didn't even know what we were supposed to be doing to succeed in the first place.

Then, years later, I find myself having to run games on internet forums, with strangers, and even though I insist on starting at level one, I don't always get to do it that way, and more importantly, because we are not sitting around a table together, there seems to be this feeling that each player is literally just playing there own adventure with their own character in a game that other people might or might not be actually playing in.

That is, my biggest complaint has always been, "You know, you guys can post to the OOC thread and talk about this as a game, you know get to know what each other is thinking about doing in different situations, coordinating you attack routines ahead of time, making, you know, plans."

But honestly, it almost never happens. And I think society play in the convention atmosphere sort of encourages this. Players just are not motivated in getting to know each other at all, unless you know the game is going to be played at regular intervals, at a table, where you have to look at other people and learn how to play with them.

But this is just my two cents worth, after all.

Addressing the bigger concern here, I think that the first time any player has their character do something that is called out by the other players as "counter to the parties overall chance of success" and the player can explain how it really is what their character would d. The rest of the party has either got to accept this play style, or they can decide that it is not something that they want to be a part of and not play. In the end, I think, we probably just need to remember that it is play, and not work. At work I have to be part of different "teams" and always work to see that those teams succeed, even when I don't like how the team is carrying out the plan to reach their goal. I'm paid to do this, so I do it with a smile on my face.

When I play, if it is not fun, I find something else to play, or someone else to play with.

[captain yesterday]

Well i'm about to embark on a campaign (Hell's Rebels) with two Inquisitors (siblings with Vampire Hunter archetype) so it should be a blast to see how they work together :-)